Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 223 (315911)
05-29-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Belfry
05-28-2006 2:27 PM


As I said, I'm not a geneticist (I'm a lowly ecologist),...
"Lowly"? We have the best job on the planet. All those molecular biologists, geneticists, physicists, and others of that ilk are simply envious. I mean, what other job can you have where you get to camp and hike, and generally play in the woods and have someone pay you for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Belfry, posted 05-28-2006 2:27 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Belfry, posted 05-29-2006 9:54 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 223 (315921)
05-29-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mr_matrix
05-28-2006 6:22 PM


Re: Fossil Gaps
Even thought the Cambrian period lasted for 5 million years, this time period is too short compared to the age of life on Earth. Most importantly, it is too short in evolutionary terms to form 60 different phyla.
Except it didn't. The Phylum Bryozoa for example didn't appear until the Ordovician (about 470 mya) - after the Cambrian. Other phyla, whose ancestors may have derived from generalized body plans in the Cambrian but are today recognized as distinct phyla, aren't observed in the fossil record until much later. Most of 'em are types that are very rarely fossilized, of course. However, the Bryozoa simply couldn't have evolved in the Cambrian, since they represent the first land plants. There's a period right at the Cambrian-Ord. boundary where on one side there are no land organisms, and on the other we see spores quite clearly representative of land plants. Sorry to burst your bubble. Not all phyla appeared in the Cambrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mr_matrix, posted 05-28-2006 6:22 PM mr_matrix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 05-29-2006 10:35 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 56 of 223 (316016)
05-29-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
05-29-2006 10:35 AM


Re: Two points.
And I should correct myself - Phylum Bryophyta, not Bryozoa. Quick fingers doth oft make stupid mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 05-29-2006 10:35 AM jar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 223 (316742)
05-31-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by DBlevins
05-31-2006 5:28 PM


I hate it when I have to do this
If the above is not 'macroevolution' as I understand it, then I have missed the train completely.
The doppler effect you hear is the train leaving the station without you. Sorry DB, but the wild mustard relatives are all the same species: Brassica oleracea. Every one of them is a distinct, formally recognized variety, but they don't even rate the term sub-species I'm afraid. IOW, broccoli, cabbage, etc, are not evidence of macroevolution, which at a minimum requires speciation.
Don't feel bad, I get my head slapped on a regular basis on this forum for much the same kind of mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by DBlevins, posted 05-31-2006 5:28 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2006 11:05 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 105 by DBlevins, posted 06-01-2006 2:44 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 97 of 223 (316758)
05-31-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Chiroptera
05-31-2006 11:05 PM


Re: attempted save
Heh. Who you talkin' to? I'm the guy that sees the fingerprints of macroevolution on a regular basis. Say, with two closely related species of Eleutherodactylus living on opposite sides of the same ridge with a transitional hybrid population between them. I don' need no steenkin' fossils!
On the other hand, in spite of the striking morphological differences between the different varieties of Brassica olercea, for better or worse taxonomists have placed them in the same species - and hence by definition can't be considered evidence of macroevolution.
Nice try on the save, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2006 11:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2006 3:05 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 99 of 223 (316789)
06-01-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
06-01-2006 3:05 AM


Re: attempted save
True enough. I never pretended to understand them anyway. I guess it would boil down to whether the creationists think broccoli, cabbage and brussel sprouts were different "kinds".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2006 3:05 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 06-01-2006 8:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024