Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 151 of 223 (318008)
06-05-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by arachnophilia
06-05-2006 12:56 AM


Re: hush
i could point you to a member or two that annoys the hell out of everybody, but that would probably violate the forum rules
rofl... oh wait.
btw, what are grounds for suspension?
and what was said about keeping up with the frogs? In other words, huh?

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 8:13 AM Damouse has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 152 of 223 (318222)
06-06-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Damouse
06-05-2006 4:19 PM


Re: hush
btw, what are grounds for suspension?
usually, breaking the forum rules.
and what was said about keeping up with the frogs? In other words, huh?
what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 4:19 PM Damouse has not replied

  
pompuspom
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 223 (318255)
06-06-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
06-04-2006 11:33 AM


Re: homework is an attitude of the mind
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.
I disagree (to a certain extent) being absolutely convinced is due to a conclusion based on aquired exivence. At the moment I am absolutely convinced, but later I might not be, depending on the evidence. I have got the book 'the making of mankind' out of the library, again. I have read through this book and others many years ago. So although I'm a layman, I'm not as ignorant as you lot conclude. And just because I've visited a creationist website, dosn't mean that I am lacking in education (which I was told by an administrator here), it just means that I have an open mind to look at both sides of the argument. The things I said were designed to be provocative and no doubt sounded ignorant to you. I was using the word 'monkey' very loosly. I prefer to read books, when I can get them, rather than reading text on a computer screen. So I'm leaving this forum to try and reach my own conclusions on the matter. And incidently, some of those links that you provided me with were pathetic. And your condescending manners suck.

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 155 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:49 PM pompuspom has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 154 of 223 (318279)
06-06-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by mr_matrix
06-02-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Speculations
Did I ever say that they are identical? The intention was to show similarity.
they [bat and bird wings] are in no way structurally similar, apart from the fact that they both contain arms, hands, and fingers.
Where is the logic in claiming that birds evolved from reptiles? Since you quickly recognized the large physiological differences between a wing of a bat and that of a bird, you said that evolutionists would not claim that birds evolved from bats because of these differences. However, evolutionists failed to see the termendous physiological differences between reptiles and birds and thats why they claim that they have evolved from each other. The vast differences between reptiles and birds will render any attempt of transition ineffective.
the differences are a lot smaller than you would think.
one of the more obvious similarities is that modern birds still have reptilian scales on their feet. they have an additional non-reptilian kind of scales (scutes) as well, on the tops of their feet. but the scales on the bottom are identical to a crocodiles in every way.
But evolutionists are only willing to make a huge leap over this gap and just hope that evolution of birds from reptiles somehow occured without being able to explain how it happened. While daydreaming about transitional fossils for this scenario.
on the contrary, we have loads of transitional fossils that prove this transition. an even aside from the transition, there is the skeletal homology (not just similarity) between birds and theropod dinosaurs, and a number of non-avian feathered dinosaurs.
Now lets say that a mutation gave a reptile something that looks like a wing (replacing hands)in a primitive form that could not fly.
if you look at the early bird fossils, you will quickly determine that the carpometacarpus (the fused apendage that formed from multiple digits, and "replaces" the hand) came very late in the came. many fully flight-capable birds lacked them. flight evolved first, then the modern bird wing.
This would not be considered advantagous to a reptile used to crawl or use its hands for other tasks. Such a handicap would be immediatly eliminated by nature.
aside from the above evidence, this point is still not true. there are a few dinosaurs that lack the use of fully functional forelimbs. the advantage of bipedalism is that it takes the weight off the front feet, and lets them be used for other purposes -- or even none at all.
the famous example, of course, is t. rex. his forelimbs are so puny that they were almost certainly nearly useless. he even lacks a third digit. an even more extreme example is mononykus (which, btw, probably is a chimera). mononykus has ONE finger, which is a little more than a claw the protrudes very slightly from his chest.
most other theropods elvoved hands capable of grasping. troodons even had a digit that was partially opposable. but the interesting ones are the dromeaosaurs, whose grasping motion directly mimics flapping. the earliest "birds" we have (archaeopteryx, etc) are also dienonychosaurs, like dromeaosaurs.
First of all, before you quote any thing to me from the bible know that I am not christian
oh?
Second, if bats were birds in the bible, apes are humans in evolution. If there is no logic in the first claim, there is no logic in the second either.
on the contrary. humans are apes for the same reason that birds are dinosaurs. bats are not birds because they're mammals.
Hybridization is not common in nature. Mostly introduced by human intervention and not purely by natural effects.
many hybrids, actually, would happen regularly in natures were it not for geographic isolation. the famous example i listed above, ligers, would actually occure very regularly if lions and tigers lived in the same part of the world. while it takes human intervention to produce them, the extent of it is putting a lion and a tiger in the same cage at a zoo.
However, hybrids have no advantages that can aid in evolution.
they would have no disadvantage, other than generally being sterile.
The hybrid zygote either dies before maturation or results in an infertile offspring.
not in all cases. female tigons, for instance, are fertile.
Ok! how is that related to the point? There are no land animals with more than 4 limbs in reality. It is only found in evolution were evolutionsts claim fish with no limbs gaining legs,
on the contrary, fish HAVE limbs. lobe-fined fish have even more limbs -- and some even exist today.
reptiles losing limbs,
losing limbs is not a problem, actually. if they are unused, they they tend to go away. but most snakes today have some kind of skeletal limb.
limbs turning to wings
wings ARE limbs
legs turning to tails, and other fantasies.
no, tails turned to tails. limbs were lost.
True! with only 26 letters you get thousands of english words. But you dont find english words with chinese or indian letters. Similarly, populations vary in their own letters but do not aquire new letters from other languages. Because if they do, the word would not make sense with forign letters.
we generally transliterate.
But evolution is like putting a letter from another language randomly in an english word giving it a new meaning! Which is not realistic.
no, that's not the claim at all. this is a common creationist idea -- that evolution is like saying a cat will give birth to a dog. to illustrate what evolution claims, let's look at the history of language. take a look at wikipedia's article on the letter A: A - Wikipedia
see the progression from the egyptian heiroglyph to modern latin letter? form the phoenician point, the letter alef also becomes the aramaic alef, and then the modern hebrew alef. it also becomes an arabic letter, as well. there is a similar progression in the chinese (kanji) pictorial "alphabet" through several scripts, and the babylonian (and ancient hebrew) cuneiforms.
Im not willing to hear stories or evolution fantasies. However, do you know that the so called human evolution is not a tree of gradual change. It is rather a "foggy" bush with either humans or apes and nothing in between except speculations or false links. (more details will be provided later).
the "bush" looks like this: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
there are THREE question marks there.
NOt true, the cambrian explosion is like a rapid diversification at the base of the evolutionary tree and not in the branches. Most of the groups of organisms we know today have been established at the cambrian.
um, let's be specific about "groups" because they have ranking. all modern PHYLA appeared during the cambrian, yes. that's a total of 37 animal phyla, one of which is chordata (containing all fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) and another of which is arthoropoda (containing all crustaceans and insects).
that's NOT to say that fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, crustaceans, and insects existed in the cambrian. they did not. two groups that would eventually contain them DID. their ancestors DID. but they did not.
Any claim that the cambrian explosion did not possess vast diversity is untrue. More than 60 phyla have been established at the cambrian explosion. 60 and not 2 or 3. This very old era was very diverse which alone invalidates the claim of "the younger the layer, the more complex".
have a look how those phyla are categorized. it's based on things like cilia and what kind of shell they have. most are not very complex -- but you're also misinterpretting the claim. "complexity" has very little to do with. just that there are more "complex" creatures and "more complex" creatures the higher we go. we still have tons of very "simple" lifeforms, even today.
How can a cold-blooded reptile become a warm-blooded bird and with a much higher metabolism? I would like to see an answer with no usual fantasies but with a real scientific explanation.
in stages. before the dinosaurs, we see many creatures that begin regulating their own body temperatures by various means. several take more upright postures, such as the "reptiles" that would become mammals. many had sails or fins (dimetrodon, for instance).
"warm blooded" actually refers to three separate conditions. see this part and this part of the wikipedia article on it. there are a few animals today that are "between cold-blooded and warm-blooded."
This is what I mean, your hypothesis that hard parts developed to allow for more fossils is unproven and speculative.
it's not speculative. it's a reasonable inference. we have a few soft-bodied creatures before the "explosion" and tons of hard bodies creatures that look just like them afterwards. hard stuff fossilizes better than soft stuff. it doesn't take sherlock holmes to guess at the cause of the increased number of fossils here.
There is still a human intervention involved. Otherwise nature doesnot act by itself to form new species.
the human intervention is limited to observation in many instances. speciation is a natural process. how do you propose the scientists are inventing new species in the lab, if it can't happen outside the lab?
The only speciation evolutionists refer to is when calling a descendant of a fish (for instance)from the hundridth generation a new species even though it is still a fish.
and at what point does it become something other than a fish? it's a new species, not a new genus. but if the descent is far enough, it will be. creationists have never even proposed any natural mechanism that will keep change from compiling -- only bad arguments about how it can't.
Here is something that clearly defies genetics: the myth of the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. This is not true. This exaggerated estimation was based on an experiment in the 1980s whereby only a group of protien were compared and not the entire genomes. These protiens where in humans and chimps where found to be 99% similar. However, those are some of the most basic and necessary proteins found in almost all organisms and not only in humans and chimps.
As you mentioned, we share genetic similarity with the bannana but that does not mean we are descendants of the bannanas. Similarly, we share other similarities to worms, insects, and other plants. Therefore, relying on genetic similarity does not cleary show you evolutionary lines of descent.
how much of your dna do you shar with your brother? with your father? with your cousin? with your cousin twice removed? three times removed?
dna similarity shows relation, and how distant. not descent.
In reality, the fossil record is actually full of gaps otherwise evolutionists wouldnt be still digging all over the world in search of imaginary trasitional links.
that's just preposterous. that's like saying "renaissance art is imperfect, otherwise no one would paint." people do what they do -- but it's still wrong. there are not major missing links that people are actively searching for. there are some minor ones, like early bats. but no one says "well, we have one example where we're missing a few fossils, evolution must be a lie! i think i'll give up and go home." the vast amount of fossils that we do have that CLEARLY indicate that evolution is a fundamental truth of paleobiology mean that one or two missing fossils do not indicate it is an error.
Also, we should have seen countless transitionals both living and fossolized. But every species is cleary identified and isolated from others.
in the same manner that all the frames of a movie are actually still. creationists have demonstrated time and time again here that NO AMMOUNT of transitional fossils will ever be enough for them to connect the dots. even if they had a completely unbroken line of fathers and sons, down to the individual animals themselves.
However, this is a distortion of the actual meaning of transitional. A transitional link should be an intermeidiate species (in between) two other different species that shows mixed traits of both species. There are no such species in the fossil record. That is why evolutionist started placing a distinct species (ie. archaepteryx) between 2 other very distinct species of reptiles and birds, even though archaepteryx is not a transitional link with a mix of reptiles and birds because it is an identified and distict species by itslef.
even your grammar is circular, here. you see it as a distinct species, and not related. therefore it is. bad, bad, bad.
do a search for the archaeopteryx thread. you will find that archaeopteryx is a theropod dinosaur in ever major and obvious way. many minor features are bird-like. the shape of the skull and the proportions therein are all bird-like. it's bones are hollow and it has modern feathers. many features are are actually in transition. some bones are partially fused in lesser degrees than modern birds.
archaeopteryx IS the single most perfect example of the conditions you are looking for in a transitional species. to deny it as such is to do so out of ignorance (for not having studies it), or out of bias ("there are no transitional species, so this can't be one").
Note: dont bother reply because im leaving the thread and wont be available to read replies.
other people can read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mr_matrix, posted 06-02-2006 9:49 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 155 of 223 (318451)
06-06-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by pompuspom
06-06-2006 10:00 AM


Re: homework is an attitude of the mind
I disagree (to a certain extent) being absolutely convinced is due to a conclusion based on aquired exivence. At the moment I am absolutely convinced, but later I might not be, depending on the evidence.
In other words you are not absolutely convinced that you are absolutely convinced .... Sorry, the logic is irrefutable: you cannot be both {A} and NOT{A}. If you even consider later changing your mind then you are NOT "absolutely convinced."
So although I'm a layman, I'm not as ignorant as you lot conclude.
TwoThree points:
(1) Being ignorant is not bad - it just means that you don't know. Remaining ignorant when you have an opportunity to learn -- and choosing not to learn -- is bad. It is being "willfully" ignorant.
(2) The comments made about ignorance were in specific reference to places where you were ignorant. Our "conclusions" have nothing to do with it -- you were the one that displayed a lack of knowledge on the topic, and that is what ignorance is.
(3) Your posts were ignorant of several things. No matter what your opinion is of yourself, your level of education or your IQ, etcetera, the fact remains that your posts were ignorant of several things.
... just because I've visited a creationist website, dosn't mean that I am lacking in education ...
Certainly not. I don't think there is a person posting here who has NOT visited a creationist website. Where education comes in, is in making judgements on the validitiy of the contents of ANY website, and in doing your homework to check it from several sources.
The things I said were designed to be provocative and no doubt sounded ignorant to you.
LOL. Really.
So I'm leaving this forum to try and reach my own conclusions on the matter. And incidently, some of those links that you provided me with were pathetic.
So, because you can't refute or answer the posts you declare victory and beat a hasty retreat ... before reality intrudes too far eh? Yawn.
And your condescending manners suck.
You get the kinds of responses you ask for.
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 153 by pompuspom, posted 06-06-2006 10:00 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 223 (318929)
06-07-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Damouse
05-31-2006 12:39 AM


Re: Speculations
Truth is always better then a lie. Always.
Amen.
The search for truth seems to lead you down a path of lees evidence, however. To the referances of a sinking ship, what is this, a political party?!
A political party? I'm not sure what you mean by that? Can you elaborate?
As to scientific progress, its the only option. And by your own standards, science could not uncover proof of an all powerful creator unless it wanted to be found. So unless your god is hiding or trying to trick the human race, who has now reached a 30% aetheist rate in the united states, it is impossible tha science will EVER point to him. what will it discover, a bloody spear? or perhaps the Ark of the covanent itself.
This thread has nothing to do with the theological aspects of the evo/creation debate, so I won't delve too deeply into that aspect. But let me say this much. There is no direct evidence of God. There is no empirical/tangible evidence of such a being. A bloody spear, pieces of the Ark, or the Arc of the Covenant will only prove the Bibles historical accuracy, but uncovering such findings only helps to give more credence to the Bible, not prove the existence of God. The Bible repeatedly posits that there is no direct evidence of God, nor should we expect to see any. What it does say is that we must first walk by faith, and when that faith in place, God begins to reveal Himslef on a very personal level.
"Faith in antagonism to common sense is fanaticism, and comon sense in antagonism to faith is rationalism. The life of faith brings the two into right relation. Common sense is not faith, and faith is not common sense; they stand in the relation of the natural and the spiritual; of impulse and inspiration. Nothing Jesus Christ ever said was common sense, it is revelation sense, and it reaches the shores where common sense fails. Faith must be tried before the reality of faith is actual. We know that all things work together for good, so that no matter what happens, the alchemy of God's providence transfigures the ideal faith into actual reality. Faith always works on the personal line, the whole purpose of God being to see that the ideal faith is made real in His children." -Oswald Chambers
Anyway, I'm afraid that's about as much theology as I will be permited to express in this thread. Anything beyond that and we'll have to adjourn until we can speak heavily about on a religious thread.
If the ToE was falsifiable, i would question mine and everyone elses belifes. But increasingly its becoming obvious that religion really was "the opiate of the masses", and only that. Proof of a divine force is heavily lacking.
I believe that ToE is based on the exact same faith that religion is based upon. I also happen to believe that it provides a satisfying basis to reject the notion and need of a Creator in the minds of countless evolutionists. And it has thus far served to be a very potent aphrodisiac for many of them, perhaps even an opiate for that 30% figure you provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Damouse, posted 05-31-2006 12:39 AM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2006 10:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 06-08-2006 8:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 223 (318936)
06-07-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2006 10:22 PM


Re: Speculations
Welcome back, nemesis.
quote:
I also happen to believe that it provides a satisfying basis to reject the notion and need of a Creator in the minds of countless evolutionists.
I've already invited you (I think) to the Motivations for Non-belief thread; although I had a different intent in mind for that thread, I don't think it would be inappropriate if you would like to say more on what you think atheists feel in that venue.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 10:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 11:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 223 (318947)
06-07-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Chiroptera
06-07-2006 10:48 PM


Re: Speculations
Welcome back, nemesis.
Thanks. My trip was horrible. A cautionary piece of advice would be, don't use Amtrak to go across state lines. Its just not worth it. I thought it would be faster than driving (which it so wasn't) and that it would save me a couple hundred bucks on airfare. But after that experience, I think I'll just opt to fly.
I've already invited you (I think) to the Motivations for Non-belief thread; although I had a different intent in mind for that thread, I don't think it would be inappropriate if you would like to say more on what you think atheists feel in that venue.
Yeah I think we jousted for a couple of posts on that thread. No, I don't blame you for being hesitant to continue in that vein on this thread. Perhaps we'll pick it up later.
I saw that you responded on the TalkOrigins request, and I'd like to start a thread on it. That would be my first time starting a thread on EvC. All I have to do is hit 'new topic,' in the 'suggestions' folder and wait for submission or rejection? I only ask because earlier today i starting to write it but decided to stop, thinking about writing all that information only to have it not go through for some reason. So, I thought I'd ask you about the particulars on how to request a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2006 10:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by AdminJar, posted 06-07-2006 11:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 06-08-2006 9:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 162 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2006 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 223 (318950)
06-07-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2006 11:35 PM


Re: Speculations
New threads get started in the "Proposed New Topic" forum.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 11:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22614
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 4.5


    Message 160 of 223 (319018)
    06-08-2006 8:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 156 by Hyroglyphx
    06-07-2006 10:22 PM


    Re: Speculations
    Chiroptera writes:
    I believe that ToE is based on the exact same faith that religion is based upon. I also happen to believe that it provides a satisfying basis to reject the notion and need of a Creator in the minds of countless evolutionists.
    This is off topic in this thread, so I'd echo Chiroptera's comment that you should take this up in the Motivations for the non-belief in God thread. I see you posted there once back in early May.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 156 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 10:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22614
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 4.5


    Message 161 of 223 (319025)
    06-08-2006 9:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
    06-07-2006 11:35 PM


    Re: Speculations
    Your last message before the weekend, Message 103, had three replies. I think the main point, not that there weren't other important points, was that you continue to misunderstand the theory of punctuated equilibria in several ways:
    1. Punctuated equilibria addresses the issue of transitional fossil evidence at the species/species level, not higher levels.
    2. Fossil transitional evidence is abundant at higher taxa levels.
    3. During the more rapid evolution of the punctuation, normal evolutionary steps are not skipped. Mutations and allele recombinations happen at the same rate as before (though there is some evidence that populations under stress experience higher rates, that possibility is not a necessary part of the theory of punctuated equilibria). What increases is the rate at which the environment selects for mutations and allele combinations that are different from the current profile for the population.
      For example, lets say that in a stable environment a common allele combination produces thicker coats. Individuals with this characteristic are selected against because they are too hot in the summer time, and they are slightly slower then their brethren with lighter coats. The population is stable with regard to this characteristic. For as long as the environment remains relatively stable, the population will remain stable with respect to thickness of coats.
      But then a change in environment causes shorter cooler summers and longer colder winters. Now, suddenly, individuals with the allele combination for thicker coats are selected *for* rather than against. Their lighter coated brethren tend not to make it through the colder winters, and the cooler summers no longer negatively affect the thicker coated individuals. They're still slower than their lighter coated brethren, but the percentage of individuals in the population with the allele combination for thicker coats rapidly increases over a period of just years.
      If the cold period persists then many other advantageous mutations and allele combinations will also be selected for instead of against, and the population will undergo rapid evolution, perhaps sufficient to eventually be considered a different species.
      The important thing to note is that no evolutionary steps are skipped. It is just that selection causes advantageous genetic changes to be selected for and thereby become rapidly distributed and represented in the population.
    Until you reach a proper understanding of the theory of punctuated equilibria and of the relevant evidence, the responses to your criticisms can only be to keep telling you that you don't yet understand it.
    For example, you've often repeated that there's far too little transitional fossil evidence. This is only true at the species/species level.
    For another example, you keep offering quotes from people like Gould that you think are saying that there is little transitional fossil evidence, but you don't seem to understand that they are talking about the species/species level.
    For yet another example, you keep saying that PE advocates evolutionary jumps. It doesn't.
    Until you correct your errors in understanding, you cannot construct a meaningful critique of PE.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 11:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 162 of 223 (319180)
    06-08-2006 3:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 158 by Hyroglyphx
    06-07-2006 11:35 PM


    Re: Speculations
    quote:
    My trip was horrible.
    Ugh. That's too bad. Me, I always enjoyed taking the train between Eugene, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. You are correct that it isn't faster than driving (the tracks aren't designed for the Acela trains to go their designed speed), but to me it was much more pleasant. We have a train track that goes through town here -- I wish Oklahoma would spend a little bit of money to help fund passenger service into Oklahoma City.
    -
    quote:
    So, I thought I'd ask you about the particulars on how to request a new thread.
    Ah, just give it a try. If it's not a very good opening post, the mods try to help you write it better. Or check out the current attempts at opening posts in the Proposed New Topics forum -- you might get an idea of what the mods are looking for.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2006 11:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    pompuspom
    Inactive Member


    Message 163 of 223 (327405)
    06-29-2006 6:12 AM


    I've changed my mind
    I came to this forum as a creationist, but I've been away and done some research, and I've changed my mind. It seems that there is so much good evidence for human evolution. Also I didn't know nout about whale transitionals. I ordered a book from the library, 'the fossil trail' by Ian Tattersall. I am half way through it, and am looking at the A. boisei, and reading on 'talk-origens' the debate about Australopithecus being bi-pedal, and creationists trying to argue around it. But when presented with so much evidence, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
    From a creationist viewpoint, there should be no transitional fossils, so there should be no H. Habilis or any other primative types of humans, or non-humans in existance. It is still hard for me to accept that Australo's evolved into a further stage of H. habilis, but I am determined to keep an open mind.
    I'm not following the thread here I know, but just wanted to say that I'm back and sorry if I offended anyone when I was here before.
    I'm still interested in the bat transitional issue.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2006 7:35 AM pompuspom has not replied
     Message 165 by jar, posted 06-29-2006 10:16 AM pompuspom has not replied
     Message 166 by nwr, posted 06-29-2006 10:25 AM pompuspom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1489 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 164 of 223 (327416)
    06-29-2006 7:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 163 by pompuspom
    06-29-2006 6:12 AM


    Re: I've changed my mind
    It is still hard for me to accept that Australo's evolved into a further stage of H. habilis, but I am determined to keep an open mind.
    That is what learning is about eh?
    ... but I've been away and done some research, and I've changed my mind.
    You may want to talk about this at the {Has EvC changed your beliefs?} thread at
    EvC Forum: Has EvC changed your beliefs?
    Not that I expect that it was EvC that changed your mind, but the information your pursued as a result of questions raised here.
    I'm still interested in the bat transitional issue.
    The problem with bat transitionals {could\would} be a special case of punk eek (punctuated equilibrium). Before flight was attained they would only be in one general area, but once flight was attained the whole continent opens up immediately (esp on geoplogical time), plus any other land masses close enough to fly to.
    Consider the examples of bird species introduced into the US -- see {Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species (Re: Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium)} thread for data (I need to update some picture links I see ...).
    EvC Forum: Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium
    The starling was introduced
    In the early 1890's, the Acclimation Society of North America released 50 pairs of Starlings into New York's Central Park as part of a project to introduce every bird ever mentioned in a Shakespeare play. Only 50 years later their populations had spread across the continent, competing for nesting sites with our native birds.
    And in 50 short years became a national 'pest' species (a blink of time in the fossil record \ geological column -- think how they would appear suddenly is the future fossil record).
    Bat dispersal once flight was attained would be no different -- especially when you consider that predators (and prey) in the new areas would not be acclimated to them.
    Also see:
    (1) Chiroptera: Fossil Record
    Fossil Record of the Chiroptera
    (2) The Green River Formation
    Green River Formation
    According to the latter the oldest known bat fossil is:
    ... Icaronycteris index, a bat found in sediments of the Green River Formation. ... The preservation includes the full skeleton, plus cartilage and wing membranes. The fossil suggests that bats had fully evolved flight by the Eocene.
    See picture:
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/...greenriver/icaronycteris.jpg
    Some evidence (teeth) suggest that bats may have evolved first in the area of France, but tracking down a non-flying bat fossil set could be very difficult. Time will tell.
    Enjoy. Enjoy learning!
    Edited by RAZD, : added comma for readability

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

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 163 by pompuspom, posted 06-29-2006 6:12 AM pompuspom has not replied

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 34059
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 165 of 223 (327450)
    06-29-2006 10:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 163 by pompuspom
    06-29-2006 6:12 AM


    Re: I've changed my mind
    Growth and learning is fun isn't it. Keep following where it leads. But also, please remember that many of us also have no problems with what the evidence shows us actually happened and our faith. All the TOE does is show us "How God Really Did It."
    We still believe the answer to many questions is "goddidit" just like the YECs and Biblical Creationists do, only we have an idea of how.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 163 by pompuspom, posted 06-29-2006 6:12 AM pompuspom 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