Transitional Forms

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

You keep talking about evidence.

​

What evidence?

---

The citation would be a place to start.

quote:

---

Every explanation that I have ever heard for the Cambrian explosion has been pure speculation.

​

If it was not for the Cambrian explosion, you would have a stronger argument.

​

But most of the variety of life that we see today evolved in such a ridiculous short period of time.

---

Why is this a challenge to evolution? If a niche is open one would expect evolution to be quite rapid.

quote:

---

The problem people always miss is the fact that during Cambrian we had an ozone layer so nothing would increase the rate of mutation.

---

Why would the rate of mutation have to be increased? Could you provide some citations for this claim?

quote:

---

There is no speculate explanation of this element of the fossil record that actually works genetically.

---

Sources please.

quote:

---

The evidence does not match the genetics.
Are you trying to transform the evidence to your image to your likeness.

---

That is quite an assertion. Why does the genetic nested hierarchy match the fossil nested hierarchy so well then? [QUOTE][b]
And let's not even begin to talk about the fact that the fossil record suggest that Prokaryote precede Eurokaryotes and yet if you were actually to use random natural processes Eukaryote cells are more probable than Prokaryotes. [/QUOTE][/b]Since on one posits only random natural processes what is your point? Something that no one argues is unlikely. Okay.

quote:

---

The existence of Introns and Junk DNA better fit a naturalistic model of descent with modification than an entire kingdom of creatures without Introns and junk DNA evolving into creatures with unnecessary information. In terms of Natural selection Prokaryotes are better suited for their environment than unicellular eukaryotes. They can replicate faster and even mutate faster and more efficiently.

---

This doesn't falsify evolution.

quote:

---

Note: I am not talking about Archae (Phyla/Kingdom there is a debate on there classification).

---

Since it doesn't appear that you can falsify evolution you must be offering a theory that better fits the evidence. Would you care to offer it? And given the existence of fossils before the Cambrian Explosion, how does PreCambrian life fit into your theory?The challenge you never seem willing to address is--since the evidence is consistent with evolution, why would you propose another theory? And what is that theory?Cheers,
Larry Handli

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Everykneeshallbow:
[b]Gene90
How can the THEORY of hierarchy in evolution stand on its own? Without transitional forms, cannot other THEORIES explain the similarity between species and groups of species? [/QUOTE][/b]If you noticed in the link I provided is a cite to a paper that details a series of transitions. Also, there are a few illustrations on the web linked from the article. Please address that paper before claiming there are no transitionals.

Percy,I understand most of your point and agree with a lot of it. Especially your point that even with contradictory evidence most scientist would continue to use descent with modification out of tradition(a typical human cultural construct)However, your comment about higher forms appearing in the Cambrian does not work for me. If an amazing amount of higher forms are present, you can always make the claim that due to early geological condition on the planet and the probablity of fossilization in the first place, that the predecessors for these higher forms simply did not fossilize, but they did exists. Note: it is the same argument I made before just increasing the number of fossils and making a untestable geolgical claim.

Nibelung,Show me how you can falsify evolution using the fossil record.It needs to be falsifiable in way that you can not simply create a narrative that can explain away the discrepency or discrepencies.While your car example is interesting, we are talking about the fossil record. Use it please.Also, descent with modification only needs one example of life on this planet not evolving from a live common ancestor. Any organisms will do. And descent with modification becomes just partial theory. And this has been my argument all along.

Larry,Keep in mind that no one argues against the fact that life on this planet has varied over time. Evolution.We are arguing against descent with modification.Using descent with modification, how do you get the development of Introns in Eukaryotes from there supposed Prokaryote ancestors?Thanks. If the theory works, it needs to work here as well. Unless, like I have been arguing all this time, it is just a partial theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

If an amazing amount of higher forms are present, you can always make the claim that due to early geological condition on the planet and the probablity of fossilization in the first place, that the predecessors for these higher forms simply did not fossilize, but they did exists.

---

If they found human fossils in the Cambrian that would falsify evolution because organisms do not appear without ancestors. Small gaps are to be expected, but there must be a starting point.Your argument is invalid because you are not basing it upon the Theory of Evolution, you are basing it upon what you believe scientists would do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

Keep in mind that no one argues against the fact that life on this planet has varied over time. Evolution.

​

We are arguing against descent with modification.

​

Using descent with modification, how do you get the development of Introns in Eukaryotes from there supposed Prokaryote ancestors?

​

Thanks. If the theory works, it needs to work here as well. Unless, like I have been arguing all this time, it is just a partial theory.

---

As I'm sure you are aware, there are a few different ideas on how this might have happened.
Two of which are:
1) nuclear origin hypothesis
2) prokaryote origin hypothesisHow would either of these disprove biological evolution or demonstrate that it is inadequate?Finally, are you now claiming that this evolution was inadequate to this point, but then took off and can explain the rest of the diversity of life? I'm rather confused about what you are claiming--you don't seem to be interested in making a positive case.Cheers,
Larry Handlin

You wrote:
"If they found human fossils in the Cambrian that would falsify evolution because organisms do not appear without ancestors. Small gaps are to be expected, but there must be a starting point.Your argument is invalid because you are not basing it upon the Theory of Evolution, you are basing it upon what you believe scientists would do. "This is not true. Keep in mind these are origin narratives.This is how it will go. At some point in the future, Human beings figure out how to artificial produce worm wholes. They use them to travel in time. One period of interest was the Cambrian explosion for the possible descent with modification implications (I hope we will know enough by this time that people will not still be claiming that this theory alone explains the origin of all life on this planet). A few of the time travelling scientist got killed and fossilized during their exploration. Thus, this is why we have human fossils and no prehuman forms.Using Occum's razor, devoid of any human mammalian ancestors this would be the second best solution.The first is the human fossil are false or the result of an accident in the lab.From the realm of science fiction, human fallibility, and etc. Scientist can pull these origin stories out of thin air. All these stories sound quite correct. So did spontaneous generation.You can always shape the story to account for contradictory or a lack of evidence.

Larry,You wrote:"As I'm sure you are aware, there are a few different ideas on how this might have happened.
Two of which are:
1) nuclear origin hypothesis
2) prokaryote origin hypothesis"Your side likes the term strawman. I have been trying to use it, but I have no word for this strategy that you guys use. I ask you about evidence for the origin of introns. A specific question. And you talk about the origin of the nucleus. Which sole purpose appears to eliminate introns out of gene sequences and protect chromosones. Hey I got a term. It's a chicken before the egg argument.And honestly, I am going to need more than you simply mentioning the prokaryote origin hypothesis. What specific hypothesis do you mean? Are talking Akaryote, Archae, symbiosis, and etc? What do mean? I need an explanation.Also, stop blurring the issue. Why would I be try disprove biological evolution? I do not need to. My argument is it only acount for allele changes in an organisms genome. These mechanism over time can lead to speciation and genus level events. But organisms of higher taxa similarities have distinct genomes that actually contain new genes and nucleotide differences so varied in the nonevolutionary hierarchy that a new explanation is needed. Darwin and the framers of the Modern sythensis had no idea of true genomic structure and this accounts for most of the problem.I am arguing the evidence. Descent with modification is a good partial theory that can explain the apparent species and genus level variations in genomes. However, the extrapolation used to go from "microevolution" to "macroevolution" is pretty much science fiction or what I like to call an origin narrative that does not have cooberating evidence.

[QUOTE] Keep in mind these are origin narratives.[QUOTE] No, it is only a scientific theory. You seem to want to call it something it isn't, and give it attributions it lacks.

quote:

---

This is how it will go. At some point in the future, Human beings figure out how to artificial produce worm wholes. They use them to travel in time. One period of interest was the Cambrian explosion for the possible descent with modification implications (I hope we will know enough by this time that people will not still be claiming that this theory alone explains the origin of all life on this planet). A few of the time travelling scientist got killed and fossilized during their exploration. Thus, this is why we have human fossils and no prehuman forms.

---

I think you're just ever so slightly short of a full orbit with this one.Here, I can toss out slimy scifi and fundamentally useless "arguments" just as easily.The wormhole device creates gravity waves that travel backward through time until they hit the edge of the universe (a giant piece of glass the Terrarium Keepers use to watch us through) where they are redshifted gravity field around the glass into microwaves, forming the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.And Cygnus X-1 is an alien toilet. More on that later...if you throw out any more ridiculous "scenarios".The first is the human fossil are false or the result of an accident in the lab.These conclusions can both be ruled out if the results are repeatable. Remember, repeatability is important in science.Scientist can pull these origin stories out of thin air.No they can't, science requires repeatability, fulfilled predictions, and evidence. If those human skeletons in the Pre-Cambrian looked like Neanderthals I don't think they are likely to be from the future. If they were from the future, they should have technology with them. Your ridiculous scifi argument makes predictions that would easily confirm or falsify it.All these stories sound quite correct.I doubt anyone else agrees.You can always shape the story to account for contradictory or a lack of evidenceThat's not science. If you haven't noticed, you are trying so hard to argue against descent that you are actually accusing science of a conspiracy, either occuring now, or whenever falsifications occur.This is the exact same tactic used by scholarly researchers involved in alien abduction studies, cattle mutilation, the hollow Earth, the Apollo-was-a-hoax theorists, and so on. Your logic that science will hide whatever it wants is unfalisifiable. Unlike common descent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
You wrote:
"If they found human fossils in the Cambrian that would falsify evolution because organisms do not appear without ancestors. Small gaps are to be expected, but there must be a starting point.

​

Your argument is invalid because you are not basing it upon the Theory of Evolution, you are basing it upon what you believe scientists would do. "

​

This is not true. Keep in mind these are origin narratives.

​

This is how it will go. At some point in the future, Human beings figure out how to artificial produce worm wholes. They use them to travel in time. One period of interest was the Cambrian explosion for the possible descent with modification implications (I hope we will know enough by this time that people will not still be claiming that this theory alone explains the origin of all life on this planet). A few of the time travelling scientist got killed and fossilized during their exploration. Thus, this is why we have human fossils and no prehuman forms.

​

Using Occum's razor, devoid of any human mammalian ancestors this would be the second best solution.

​

The first is the human fossil are false or the result of an accident in the lab.

​

From the realm of science fiction, human fallibility, and etc. Scientist can pull these origin stories out of thin air. All these stories sound quite correct. So did spontaneous generation.

​

You can always shape the story to account for contradictory or a lack of evidence.

---

ROTFLMAO--nice dodge. And you are doing a good job of providing such stories. Do you care to deal with any evidence? Gene and I will accept human fossils found in the Cambrian as falsification. Is there such evidence? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

Larry,

​

You wrote:"As I'm sure you are aware, there are a few different ideas on how this might have happened.
Two of which are:
1) nuclear origin hypothesis
2) prokaryote origin hypothesis"

​

Your side likes the term strawman. I have been trying to use it, but I have no word for this strategy that you guys use. I ask you about evidence for the origin of introns. A specific question. And you talk about the origin of the nucleus. Which sole purpose appears to eliminate introns out of gene sequences and protect chromosones. Hey I got a term. It's a chicken before the egg argument.
And honestly, I am going to need more than you simply mentioning the prokaryote origin hypothesis. What specific hypothesis do you mean? Are talking Akaryote, Archae, symbiosis, and etc? What do mean? I need an explanation.

---

Why? You brought up the subject--if it is relevant to demonstrating that microevolution is inadequate to explain common descent explain specifically why? My question was:How would either of these disprove biological evolution or demonstrate that it is inadequate?Choose any specific hypothesis and explain what you appear to be implying.Are you trying to change the subject again? How do any of the potential hypotheses present a barrier to microevolution leading to macroevolution? Why is this such a difficult question to answer? You claim a barrier and point towards the introns in eukaryotes--why does that demonstrate a barrier? Or was it a red herring?

quote:

---

Also, stop blurring the issue. Why would I be try disprove biological evolution? I do not need to. My argument is it only acount for allele changes in an organisms genome. These mechanism over time can lead to speciation and genus level events. But organisms of higher taxa similarities have distinct genomes that actually contain new genes and nucleotide differences so varied in the nonevolutionary hierarchy that a new explanation is needed.

---

You have only asserted this and until you demonstrate such a barrier you don't have an argument. Could you be right? Sure, but you have yet to cite any evidence to support your claim.

quote:

---

Darwin and the framers of the Modern sythensis had no idea of true genomic structure and this accounts for most of the problem.

---

Darwin didn't? Wow.How is the essential finding of the Modern Synthesis wrong? Either you claim to know of a barrier that stops microevolution from progressing into macroevolution or you are simply suggesting there is another genetic mechanism that is missing. Either way you need to support it, but the latter certainly doesn't challenge the essential element of the Modern Synthesis. In which case your objections are trivial. [QUOTE][b]
I am arguing the evidence. [/QUOTE][/b]No, you have not provided any evidence yet. You have danced around and avoided evidence.
Demonstrate a barrier. It would be amazing if you could do that without citations.

quote:

---

Descent with modification is a good partial theory that can explain the apparent species and genus level variations in genomes. However, the extrapolation used to go from "microevolution" to "macroevolution" is pretty much science fiction or what I like to call an origin narrative that does not have cooberating evidence.

---

ROTF--are you a troll?

(reply to post 19)
___________________________________
T-Show me how you can falsify evolution using the fossil record.
___________________________________
I frankly doubt that evolution can be completely falsified with the fossil record alone, never claimed it could be. It would, however, falsify part of the theory and shake it to its roots. I do appreciate your problem with falsification of the theory of evolution. How did this turn into a falsification topic by the way? I don't have any quick and dirty falsification of the entire theory. Part of the problem, as it is with so many of these discussions, is definitions. Falsification doesn't have to be all or none. Falsification can be piecemeal. Falsification doesn't have to be easy, either but it does have to be the result of scientific physical evidence (not your God-coming-down-maybe-he-will-maybe-he-won't-nobody-can-know kind of evidence). Because beyond that, a major part of the problem is the vast amount of evidence that scientists have already accumulated to support the theory. It would be difficult to beat it. I agree that even the idea of finding Homo sapiens fossils in preCambian geological layers wouldn't kill evolution immediately. There is too much at stake, too much energy, time, and emotion invested, and too much evidence. It would definitely shake the theory to its roots but you are right that some scientists would try to rationalize around it-- say there were two overlapping evolutions or there must be transitional fossils even before the preCambian ones, or more likely yet, just scream "it just isn't true, it must be a fraud!". What can I tell you, the theory of evolution is a huge complex edifice that is all wrapped up in and integrated with other fields of science. It isn't going to fall down if you throw a rock at it. That has been true of many of the theories in the history of science. They don't go away very easily. But they do change and they will go away eventually if enough real contradictory evidence is brought to bear on them. Falsification isn't necessarily all or none. Part of the evolutionary theory would be falsified if the above preCambian discovery were made. Additional discoveries would be required to continue the process of piecemeal falsification until nothing was left of the theory.Sure, some would rationalize, 'maybe earlier fossils weren't preserved' but lack of evidence does not support or detract from a theory. The presence of the preCambian evidence would force scientists to change the theory. The lack of other earlier fossils would not change a thing, nor should it.
Here is a better way to completely falsify the theory without fossils. Creationists admit that microevolution is possible but act like there is a barrier to macroevolution. It is almost impossible to imagine but suppose the next great molecular biology discovery is that there actually is, surprisingly and unexpectedly, some barrier beyond which an organism can not accumulate mutations making it impossible for macroevolution to occur. Maybe, as in apoptosis, there is a self destruct gene and this self destruct (or evolution destruct) gene is turned on when a certain number of mutations accumulate in the genome. If this finding were confirmed and found to be a general mechanism in biological organisms, that would be a death blow to evolutionary theory. Again, it would not die easily or quickly. Science isn't quick to make changes. It would be a bloody terrible and slow death but it would be inevitable if this imaginary discover were made.

Nibelung,Great. I am glad you and some others have been willing to admit that the fossil record alone can not be used to falsify evolution.One slight problem with your post, however. I do not say there is a limit to the changes possible in a nucleotide sequence. That would be a interesting argument. But easily defeatable. My argument is that none of the known mechanims for allelic diversity lead to new genes with new functions.

Larry,You wrote:"ROTFLMAO--nice dodge. And you are doing a good job of providing such stories. Do you care to deal with any evidence? Gene and I will accept human fossils found in the Cambrian as falsification. Is there such evidence? Yes or no?"But Larry, the reason for my science fiction scenario and the hoax scenario is that science has strongly established that no homosapiens were alive during PreCambrian or Cambrian. Thus, if human fossils in the Cambrian is a falsification. Yet, we know except for my fantastic scenario this could not possible happen. Then, the fossil record is not falsifiable. QEDBut more importantly, Dodge Dodge. You have failed to explain how a known mechanism of mutation in a genome can make the transition from Prokaryote to Eukaryote. Or unicellular to multicellular organisms. Or the entire family of proteins that separate Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes.My argument is like being pregnant. Either you have a placenta or you don't. The ancestor of creatures, using descent with modification, that had a placenta did not have one. So it is a series of proteins with a novel function and regulating hormones which determine when the mother develops it. What mechanism can produce such change in one generation.Are you getting my argument or not? When you look at lower levels of taxonomical difference you do not get any problems. You avoid any of these problems. The scientific evidence does not support the extrapolate higher levels of taxa using descent with modification.But let's go back for a second.Using descent with modification, What mechanism changes a prokaryote to a Eukaryote?Does your side have an answer?If the theory is not simply a partial theory like I argue, it must work in all cases.You have briefly referred to some theories on how this happened, but do those theories actually support descent with modification or do they utilize a different mechanism to explain this evolution.Does your side spend so much time debating with young earth creationist about speciation that you have not bothered to deal with the issue of whether descent with modification can be extrapolated?And please stop referring to that genus/species transitional fossil link. I have examined it about three times now and still do not see how it directly addresses my extrapolation argument. I am arguing higher taxa and it arguing lower taxa. But I agree with lower taxa. It's a red herring.The force of gravity and electromagnetism are the forces that determine the behaviour of matter until you get to the nuclear level. They are merely partial explanations of the forces that govern matter.Similary, Scientist are observing organisms using genetics. Descent with modification explains the origin of genus, species, and individual variation. But these mechanism do not produce new genes with entirely new functions. Organisms with higher taxanomical differences have distinct functions and genomic arrangements. Extrapolation has not been demonstrated to provide a scientific explanation.Show that descent with modification is the only mechanism. Thus, making it a complete theory. Thus, show that descent with modification, can produce the difference between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. Given that the theory argues that Prokaryotes came first.