Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 136 of 223 (317542)
06-04-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by arachnophilia
06-04-2006 7:25 AM


Re: bats
arac writes:
well, i dunno about that. i don't think they're lift-generating on their own, like bird wings.
This is true. Bats have to flap constantly to maintain level flight - they glide very poorly. They are certainly far less well adapted to flight than most birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 7:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 9:12 AM RickJB has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 137 of 223 (317545)
06-04-2006 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 8:10 AM


Re: duh
All this material is based on a belief that evolution is true
not so.
it is, however, true that evolution is absolutely the foundation of modern biology. the factuality of it is so obvious and apparent that it is the method by which many things are explained. the problem you are having, it seems, is that the "interpretation" of the fossil record relies heavily on the basic principle of variation, speciation, and change over time. we can say that because we know evolution happens, there is an explanation for the pattern in the fossil record.
the problem is, of course, that even without the knowledge of evolution -- we would be forced to draw the same conclusion from the fossil record alone! seeing the gradual introduction of most everything, and subtle changes over time, and the branching tree of life that any sort of grand cladistical study would yield would have defined evolution had darwin not.
I am absolutly convinced that it is not true. So convinced that I am open to any evidence to challenge my thought.
you said above that the bird evidence is convincing -- though honestly it sounds like you don't really even know the first thing about it. i don't mean that in an insulting way, just that there is so much more than you imagine.
I was in a natural-history museum in Germany recently, and there was the eohippus (forgive spelling) the ancestor of the horse. Hang on a minute, could you please supply me with evidence that this animal evolved into a horse? 'Don't just say it did'.
it's a bit like looking at a snapshot of something in motion. you can't PROVE it was moving, but if you have enough snapshots, it's a very reasonable inference. in fact, if you have enough snapshots, and you display them in quick succession, it's convincing enough that our brains no longer register still images, but moving pictures.
it's not eohippus, but it and all of the other early horses, in context. one transitional is a good hint, especially if it is morphologically between the two forms in question. but a dozen in succession make for a very reasonable inference.
i recommended a book to christian a while back, vertebrate paleontology and evolution. try and find it in a library or something. i recommended it because it's full of pictures. it's not a low-level text, but it's not a heady 4000-level paleontology course either. it doesn't go into a ton of detail about everything, but it does give a broad and generalized picture of the history of evolution of vertbrate animals on this planet, using technical drawings and skeletal reconstructions. flipping through, it's relatively easy (at least for me) to see the grand pictures, and how things change through slight modification. everything in the book looks like something else, which in turn also looks like something else, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 8:10 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 138 of 223 (317546)
06-04-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 8:10 AM


Re: duh
pompuspom writes:
I had a quick peek at one of these links supplied in reply to my statement that 'there are no link fossils'. There is a lot of text. One could spend a long time trying to find evidence on the net, and any material available to read. I'll do some more research, when I have time. All this material is based on a belief that evolution is true.
That evolution occurred is a settled issue among biologists. The material is based on a belief that evolution is true in the same sense that modern chemistry is based on a belief that atomic theory is true.
pompuspom writes:
The human evolution subject, in my previous existance as a beleiver, provided the strongest evidence for evolution, but recently I've seen monkeys from S.America with a rounded head shape.
So what? You don't think that the placement of fossils into the hominin lineage is based on something as simple as "rounded head shape," do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 8:10 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 139 of 223 (317547)
06-04-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by RickJB
06-04-2006 9:06 AM


Re: bats
This is true. Bats have to flap constantly to maintain level flight - they glide very poorly. They are certainly far less well adapted to flight than most birds.
i'm sure they glide about as well other membraned "flying" mammals, which sort of really parachute... but generating lift without flapping would be out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RickJB, posted 06-04-2006 9:06 AM RickJB has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 140 of 223 (317548)
06-04-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 8:10 AM


Re: duh
pompouspom writes:
All this material is based on a belief that evolution is true.
No. It's based on the the evidence at hand! It so happens that the evidence consistently backs the evolutionary hypothesis.
You really must not confuse evolutionary theory with religion. A scientist's "belief" in evolution is based solely on the fact that it is well backed by empirical evidence. If such evidence did not exist then evolution would be ditched very quickly.
As it stands, literally thousands upon thousands of independently-made scientific observations have supported evolution. For sure, science doesn't have all the details, but the evidence we do have is strong enough for evolution to be regarded as a full-blown scientific theory.
Edited by RickJB, : Typos.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 8:10 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 223 (317572)
06-04-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by pompuspom
06-03-2006 4:23 PM


homework is an attitude of the mind
Welcome to the fray, Pompuspom. I did a double take on the screen-name (m can look like r n ...)
msg 116 writes:
Can coal be carbon dated? It is carbon isn't it? And how does the carbon date work on carbon that is supposed to be 200 million'ish years old?
This is off-topic here (see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III for a topic to continue any discussion on this) but I would like to point out one thing:
It is very easy to determine the extent of possible dating of objects by carbon 14 from a google on the topic. The limit for accurate dates is 50,000 years. Do a google on "carbon dating limits" and on "carbon dating problems" and see what the scientists in the field have to say (a good source is Dr. Roger Wiens - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective)
The point is that ignorance is easy to overcome with a little study -- if you want to -- but failure to even make the attempt is a different matter. It's the issue of doing your homework before you make a statement based on ignorance.
Enough have answered on the transitional fossils bit for now, so I will wait to see what the response is.
Pompuspom, msg 128 writes:
A bat has wings formed by very long fingers, obviously. Now consider, what advantage is a slight elongation of the fingers in one mutated animal?
I see arachnophilia has already addressed this to some extent, but let me add some details:
You're starting at the wrong end. Look at flying squirrels that glide from tree to tree with a membrane that stretches from the forearm to the hindleg.
Flying Squirrel (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
Compare this to a non-flying squirrel
Jumping Red Squirrel (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
All you need to start with is an aboreal animal jumping from tree to tree, and those that evolve more membrane between arm and body will jump further.
There is a very obvious evolutionary advantage to being able to jump further, whether it is to get food or to evade predators, and the disadvantage of a little extra skin does not hinder the activity of the flying squirrels.
NOW, what we see in a bat wing,
Bat Wing (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
Is the same kind of development of a membrane between the forearm and the hindlegs, carried the next logical step -- filling in between the hindlegs and the tail, and extending out the fingers of the hand, and then filling in between the fingers as the fingers become extended.
As the animal becomes more adapted to flight rather than just gliding, the membrane will increase in size and the bones will elongate to support the membrane better and the muscles will adapt to power the wings -- as they can (there are limits due to mass versus surface area).
There is no wonder in how bat wings could evolve.
But also, your argument from incredulity:
... what advantage is a slight elongation of the fingers in one mutated animal?
Is also contradicted by factual evidence. We also have Wallace's Flying Frog (Website chosen at random from Google images). Here we have an organism with elongated fingers, sufficient webbing only between the fingers and toes to allow the animal to glide for long distances from tree to tree, and it is surviving quite nicely.
Your opinion of what can and cannot survive is wrong. Rather than impose any kind of limit on what can and cannot happen in real life we see that it is your failure {imagination\understanding\homework} that is the problem.
Pompuspom msg 134 writes:
I had a quick peek at one of these links ... There is a lot of text.
That is what doing your homework entails eh? Actually learning what you are about to talk about, actually learning what you want to know instead of making it up as you go along. Remember that you are making comments about a subject that other people have spent their life studying: while they don't expect you to try to become an expert in their field, they do think you need at least learn the rudimentary basics.
... I am absolutly convinced that it is not true. So convinced that I am open to any evidence to challenge my thought.
Contradiction.
Being absolutely convinced that it is not true is NOT being open to evidence that it is true. You are either one or the other.
Hang on a minute, could you please supply me with evidence that this animal evolved into a horse? 'Don't just say it did'.
Again arachnophilia has addressed this, but we also have a thread that discusses some of this (that Christian started): evolutionary chain, with the horses discussion starting at message 143.
I fully expect that we will once again see a lack of doing your homework as the basis for more ill-formed opinion(s). People who want to learn do their homework.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pompuspom, posted 06-03-2006 4:23 PM pompuspom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 11:57 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 12:11 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 153 by pompuspom, posted 06-06-2006 10:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
pompuspom
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 223 (317580)
06-04-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
06-04-2006 11:33 AM


hush
Ok, I'll shut up. I'm probably annoying the hell out of everybody, I'm going over to see about coal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 11:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 12:01 PM pompuspom has not replied
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:56 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 223 (317582)
06-04-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 11:57 AM


Re: hush
No, not really annoying, other than that we've seen it before.
Feel free to ask.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 11:57 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 144 of 223 (317584)
06-04-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
06-04-2006 11:33 AM


Flying Snakes
recently several videos of flying (well gliding actually) snakes have been published on the net. You can see some here.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 11:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 5:47 PM jar has not replied
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2006 6:29 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 223 (317686)
06-04-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-04-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Flying Snakes
Cool site, nice pics.
Not something to do on a full stomach however eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 12:11 PM jar has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 223 (317697)
06-04-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-04-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Flying Snakes
An excessively fine snake! There was an article on them in Nature a couple of years back. They're a decent excuse to not go to Malaysia....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 12:11 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 6:51 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 147 of 223 (317708)
06-04-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coragyps
06-04-2006 6:29 PM


Re: Flying Snakes
the snakes had to figure out how to keep up with the frogs ... thas all

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2006 6:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 7:00 PM RAZD has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 148 of 223 (317711)
06-04-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by RAZD
06-04-2006 6:51 PM


Re: Flying Snakes
More videos. These I came across not long ago.
Flying snakes

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 6:51 PM RAZD has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 149 of 223 (317770)
06-05-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 11:57 AM


Re: hush
Ok, I'll shut up. I'm probably annoying the hell out of everybody, I'm going over to see about coal.
nah, if we were annoyed by general debate of this topic, we wouldn't be here would we?
i could point you to a member or two that annoys the hell out of everybody, but that would probably violate the forum rules...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 11:57 AM pompuspom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 4:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 150 of 223 (317866)
06-05-2006 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by mr_matrix
06-02-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Speculations
mr_matrix writes:
Note: dont bother reply because im leaving the thread and wont be available to read replies.
I'll reply to this message should you return.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mr_matrix, posted 06-02-2006 9:49 PM mr_matrix 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