Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22693
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 61 of 223 (316080)
05-29-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Speculations
There is no need to go back and reply to my old messages that you missed earlier. The discussion has moved on, you should have replied instead to my more recent Message 50.
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
PE gives reasons for why we shouldn't expect to find very many transitions in the fossil record, again, presumably to cover up the fact that they simply don't exist.
You're like a recording that can only repeat, "Transitionals don't exist." It doesn't seem to matter how often it is pointed out that transitionals do exist, you just keep repeating it.
These are Gould's own words from an essay he wrote in 1981 titled Evolution as Fact and Theory:
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
It is transitionals at the higher taxa levels that you're interested in. Now that I've quoted one of the originators of the theory of punctuated equilibria saying that such transitionals are "abundant", that will hopefully bring an end to your oft repeated and just as often wrong claim that they don't exist, and that punctuated equilibria was proposed to explain why they don't exist.
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
This is a brief synopsis, but I think it conveys that I understand what lies at the root of the theory.
Your errors convey just the opposite impression. It still seems pretty clear that you've misunderstood why PE was proposed. You still think it was proposed to explain the fact that transitionals at higher taxa levels don't exist. But they do exist. PE was actually proposed to explain why finely gradated transitions at the species level are so rare.
Your mistaken understanding of PE even contains an obvious contradiction. First you say:
They also say that when it does make its transition, its usually punctuated by short (geologically/biologically, relative to a vast stretch of time) bursts of change. That rapidity creates less of a chance for us to find solid evidence of such gradations.
Which is largely correct - the steps are normal evolutionary steps produced by selection amongst variation in a population. Then you say:
I was asserting that steps are being skipped.
I presume you mean that you were explaining that PE asserts that steps are being skipped. It doesn't. PE does not propose "taxonomical jumps".
Here, you once again repeat the claim about absence of transitionals, this time at the genus level:
I appreciate your train model and understand what you're arriving at, but odds are odds - and the odds that in the million + fossils on file that none of them clearly show any change from one species creating a new genus through morphology, acts as a detriment.
The claim of the absence of genus transitionals is easily rebutted by providing some examples. Here's a paragraph describing some genus transitionals from Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A, Kathleen Hunts article about transitional fossils over at TalkOrigins:
Kathleen Hunt writes:
Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977)
traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus
frugivorus
and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that
they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size,
mesostyle development, and every other character available for
study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from
that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich
Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for
every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus
ralstoni
(54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus
to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One
became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed
into C. consortutus. The second branch became P.
frugivorus
. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed
into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself
split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N.
pugnax
(which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and
possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to
S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least
three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million
years.
I think you're confused about your own position. You keep claiming an absence of transitionals at low, middle and high taxa levels, but the lowest level is just normal trans-species evolution that creationists already concede. The middle level transitions are copiously represented in the fossil record. It is the highest level taxa transitions where you could probably make the strongest case, which is why the Cambrian explosion often comes up in these discussions.
In other words, you would be well advised to stop claiming that there are no genus, family or order transitionals in the fossil record, primarily because it is easily rebutted and obviously wrong.
This is an inferrence and it is an interesting one. However, I feel that there is no legitimate evidence supporting macroevolution.
But you reached this conclusion while under the misimpression that transitional fossils don't exist. In other words, you reached your conclusions based on bad data. You need to incorporate the fact that transitional fossils at higher taxa levels exist into your thinking.
There are scores of secularists in the fields of science who feel the same way, not based on personal predjudices, but on the merits of unbiased science.
There are few ideas in science that are accepted 100% by the scientific community, including relativity. In fact, there are probably more secular scientists who question relativity than question evolution. So what?
If you'd like to discuss horse evolution at the level of detail that you've already begun, then you really should propose a new thread. My only point was that it is a common misconception of creationists that parent species do not survive speciation events. I won't contribute further to pulling the thread off topic.
I used the changing number of horse ribs as an example while explaining why the creationist term "fully formed" is a misunderstanding of how evolutionary change takes place. New ribs do not evolve from scratch - a new rib arises (or goes away) when the allele that says how many times to invoke the rib gene changes.
I couldn't referrences on the changing of horse ribs. Where can I find a source on this?
There's no reference for this, it's just the way evolution works to produce more or less of the same structure. Whether you're talking about centipede segments or insect legs or ribs, the number of segments or legs or ribs changes not because a new one evolves from scratch and or an existing way gradually withers away, but because of a simple change in a gene that specifies how many copies to produce. It's a simple principle applied over and over and over again throughout evolutionary history.
This is why you should not expect to see transitional forms with partial segments of legs or ribs. It's why the creationist concept of "fully formed" is so far off target. All species are always fully formed. It's why species are not final products but just way stations on the way to another species.
Many opponents of evolution are typically creationists, however, this is far from exclusivity.
You are again declaring that black is white. The creationist movement is almost exclusively evangelical Christian. This is as expected, since the objections stem from evangelical Christian interpretations of Genesis, which of course Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Moslems and so forth do not share.
This is just how I feel about it. And as dogmatically as some adhere to it despite some good arguments against its most basic theory, it seems that abandoning it would betray philosphical suppositions.
And what philosophical suppositions would those be? The common bond among evangelical Christians is obvious, but what common philosophical bond can you find between American Catholic evolutionists, French Protestant evolutionists, Arabian Moslem evolutionists, Pakistani Hindu evolutionists and Indian Buddhist evolutionists? Your charge is absurd. And off-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 223 (316095)
05-29-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 12:51 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
You are confusing with absence of evidence with evidence for absence, a logical fallacy.
I don't understand how you could interpret this as a logic fallacy.
It's real easy how I can interpret it that way -- because it is. It falls in this category of thinking:
all{A} is {B} therefore all{B} is {A}
This is the logic you just dismissed as a logical fallacy.
but all{C} is not {A} and {B} includes {A} and {C}
Thus you have {B} = {A} and {B} cannot = {A} at the same time.
I'll get to the rest of your "arguments" later. I dont' expect much better results however.
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 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 12:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 825
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 63 of 223 (316099)
05-29-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mr_matrix
05-29-2006 5:55 PM


Re: Speculations
Variations but not evolution. I can draw a tree of my family and this tree is full of Humans only. But the tree of life mixes up different creatures wherever evolutionists see fit.
This is only because you refuse to go back to the begining of life on this planet. Pretty much all life is related to you, this is not wild speculation, this is what the evidence shows. Bury your head in the sand if this offends you, but this is what all the evidence points to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mr_matrix, posted 05-29-2006 5:55 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 223 (316141)
05-29-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Belfry
05-29-2006 7:14 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
You are familiar with what logical fallacies are, right? Circular reasoning is another one, but not the one we're talking about. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a form of the argument from ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam. See this wiki article for more info.
Then evolution falls into that same exact category. Look, ToE barely even has circumstancial evidence at its disposal, let alone a cogent argument in support of itself. If there is no evidence, then no evidence has been proposed. Does that mean that no evidence will ever surface? No, not necessarily. However, if there is so much lacking withing the theory, and yet some of you hold fast to it, then is it unreasonable for me to suppose that it must serve some philosophical facet of your life?
We do not expect the fossil record to be a perfect and complete record of evolutionary history, for the many reasons already enumerated.
Believe me when I say that I don't expect the fossil record to be perfect. I know that most organisms do not survive decay. I'd just like to see something that really made me question it.
Therefore we can't say that lack of a fossil form means that an organism DIDN'T exist.
Neither can we say that it did by that premise.
Instead, we have to look at the fossils that we DO have, in combination with the large amount of information we have about living creatures, to draw conclusions.
And that's what we've done, and the conclusion tells me that it supports animals belonging to its own 'kind.'
No one but you and Mr.Matrix has argued that the fossil record is complete. Show us one example in this forum of someone else arguing that it is. We do have some nice transitional fossil sequences - certainly not every single transitional step, but we wouldn't expect to find that. The transitional steps that we DO have (in the whale sequence, for example), support the evolutionary model.
Uh, Matrix and I couldn't argue against evolution and claim that it IS complete. Our objection is based on the lack of evidence. As far as the whale sequence is concerned, I have so many objections that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps we can start a thread on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus.
Let's clear this up. Who among us appears to disagree with punctuated equilibria? Give us quotes and message numbers, please, or retract your assertion and cease remaking it.
No openly opposes PE in here. What I see is that they conveniently go back and forth between PE and gradualism. I think I've provided more than enough quotes straight from the horses mouth to clear up any misconceptions.
It occurs to me that you might not know what a straw man argument is. It's another logical fallacy, one we see an awful lot from the creationist camp.
Of course I know what a strawman is and logical fallacies. The last forum I was on used the terminologies quite frequently. It was irritating, not because any of it was true, but because they used it to detract from the actual argument. In the last forum that was a typical tactic. If they had no argument left, they'd simply claim arguments from incredulity, strawmen, logical fallacies, and of course my favorite, ad hominem. Nothing says you don't have an argument more than reverting back to schoolyard name-calling.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Belfry, posted 05-29-2006 7:14 AM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by MangyTiger, posted 05-30-2006 12:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 66 by lfen, posted 05-30-2006 1:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 68 by Belfry, posted 05-30-2006 6:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 05-30-2006 8:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 65 of 223 (316151)
05-30-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
As far as the whale sequence is concerned, I have so many objections that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps we can start a thread on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus.
There have been a couple of threads on Whale evolution recently (mostly driven by a now-banned member called randman). In my opinion they never really went anywhere so it might be fun if you can get another one past the admins.
See Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet, and A Whale of a Tale and Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils.

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2006 5:04 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4790 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 66 of 223 (316161)
05-30-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
So we have the fossil and geological data and theories to explain it.
We have the biological studies of organisms, cladistics, DNA.
If you think the Theory of Evolution doesn't account for the diversity of life over time, the similiarities of DNA, forms and functions, then what scientific theory do you have that accounts for all this diversity of life over time?
Why only bacteria for millions of years? Why only life forms found in the oceans for millions of years and then gradually more life forms appearing on land with increasing complexity, etc.?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 223 (316180)
05-30-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by MangyTiger
05-30-2006 12:29 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
There have been a couple of threads on Whale evolution recently (mostly driven by a now-banned member called randman). In my opinion they never really went anywhere so it might be fun if you can get another one past the admins.
See Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet, and A Whale of a Tale and Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils.
if i see another thread on whale evolution, *i* might just grow flippers and swim out to sea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by MangyTiger, posted 05-30-2006 12:29 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 68 of 223 (316188)
05-30-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
NM writes:
Then evolution falls into that same exact category. Look, ToE barely even has circumstancial evidence at its disposal, let alone a cogent argument in support of itself. If there is no evidence, then no evidence has been proposed. Does that mean that no evidence will ever surface? No, not necessarily. However, if there is so much lacking withing the theory, and yet some of you hold fast to it, then is it unreasonable for me to suppose that it must serve some philosophical facet of your life?
Except that we DO have lots of evidence. Simply saying we don't doesn't make it go away. What sort of evidence would you find convincing?
NJ writes:
Neither can we say that it did by that premise.
Right, and we don't assume that any particular form will exist, rather the theory predicts that transitional forms will be found linking many taxa. Many such forms have indeed been found, and a few have already been discussed. Not every single step along the way, but fortunately you say you don't expect a perfect fossil record, so that should not be surprising to you.
NJ writes:
And that's what we've done, and the conclusion tells me that it supports animals belonging to its own 'kind.'
Perhaps you'd like to join one of the many threads that have been started in which we ask for a working definition of "kinds."
NJ writes:
Uh, Matrix and I couldn't argue against evolution and claim that it IS complete. Our objection is based on the lack of evidence.
I agree it is a baffling claim for a creationist to make, but Mr.Matrix has indeed made it in Message 12: "Now the fossil record is almost complete and provides a huge wealth of information about living species emerging all of a sudden with no evolutionary past." You haven't claimed that it is complete, but you have falsely claimed that some evolutionists believe it is (e.g. Message 38).
NJ writes:
No openly opposes PE in here. What I see is that they conveniently go back and forth between PE and gradualism. I think I've provided more than enough quotes straight from the horses mouth to clear up any misconceptions.
No, you haven't. A person can't "go back and forth" between PE and gradualism, unless your (NJ's) definition of "gradualism" is completely meaningless. PE does not specify that gradual change can never happen, and it certainly does not specify large taxonomic "jumps" with no intermediate steps.
NJ writes:
Of course I know what a strawman is and logical fallacies. The last forum I was on used the terminologies quite frequently. It was irritating, not because any of it was true, but because they used it to detract from the actual argument. In the last forum that was a typical tactic. If they had no argument left, they'd simply claim arguments from incredulity, strawmen, logical fallacies, and of course my favorite, ad hominem. Nothing says you don't have an argument more than reverting back to schoolyard name-calling.
Good, then I trust you will make a greater effort to accurately characterize the arguments of your opponents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22693
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 223 (316197)
05-30-2006 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
05-29-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Look, ToE barely even has circumstancial evidence at its disposal,...If there is no evidence, then no evidence has been proposed.
You keep claiming there is no evidence, we keep pointing out there is. We have to find a way off this merry-go-round.
I'll stick with the thread's topic and only address the evidence for fossil transitionals. Fossil transitional forms exist for the higher taxa, and there are even some fossil series for species/species transitions. Their existence is something you're going to have to deal with. You can't keep saying there is no evidence when there is.
If what you actually mean is that you find the evidence unconvincing, then you have to explain why. The gradually changing forms found in the fossil record that lie between taxa fit into the classification scheme for life, and they are largely congruent with the genetic evidence of descent. If you have problems with this evidence then describe those problems to us. A simplistic "There's no evidence" when there obviously is just doesn't suffice.
I quoted some text about transitionals from TalkOrigins in my previous message. Here are some photographs of a fossil sequence showing gradual plankton evolution taken from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina:
This is evidence, so clearly evidence exists. But you don't agree with the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence. Okay, that's fine. But this time instead of just repeating the quite obviously wrong "There's no evidence," please explain what it is about this evidence that you find unpersuasive.
Therefore we can't say that lack of a fossil form means that an organism DIDN'T exist.
Neither can we say that it did by that premise.
You've pulled the comment out of context. Belfry isn't claiming existence for things that have no evidence. He's replying to your position that seems to be the same as claiming that the actors in a movie weren't really there between frames.
Instead, we have to look at the fossils that we DO have, in combination with the large amount of information we have about living creatures, to draw conclusions.
And that's what we've done, and the conclusion tells me that it supports animals belonging to its own 'kind.'
This is another topic, but I just want to note that this is nonsense because there is no definition of 'kind'. Even you put it between quotation marks. 'Kind' is from Genesis. I'm just noting this, not trying to introduce a new topic. If you'd like to discuss the definition of 'kind' please open a new thread.
Our objection is based on the lack of evidence. As far as the whale sequence is concerned, I have so many objections that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps we can start a thread on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus.
So you concede that there is evidence for the whale sequence, you just disagree as to interpretation. That's good, we're making progress. So in other words, you're not really pretending that all the paleontological museums in the world are really empty or just full of fakes. You're not really claiming fossils don't exist. You're just disagreeing with the interpretation of the fossil evidence. Right? So could we please stop claiming there is no evidence so that we can move on to discuss the interpretation of the evidence?
No openly opposes PE in here. What I see is that they conveniently go back and forth between PE and gradualism.
No one advocates "constant speedism" today, not here or anywhere else. Phyletic gradualism was never some overarching fundamental concept in biology anyway. You're making the mistake of assuming that when someone talks about an example of evolution at a consistent pace that they're advocating phyletic gradualism. They're not. I hope I can talk about the millions of years of gradual evolution recorded in some seabeds without being accused of being a gradualist. The theory of punctuated equilibria does not require that all evolution be unevenly paced, only that it can be. And it is often the case when talking about evolution that examples of consistent slow paced evolution are much easier to talk about, as long as the subject isn't PE.
So please stop these nebulous accusations that there are people here advocating phyletic gradualism. The very next time you think someone is advocating phyletic gradualism you point it out so that we can get to the bottom of why you keep reaching this silly conclusion.
Of course I know what a strawman is and logical fallacies. The last forum I was on used the terminologies quite frequently. It was irritating, not because any of it was true, but because they used it to detract from the actual argument. In the last forum that was a typical tactic. If they had no argument left, they'd simply claim arguments from incredulity, strawmen, logical fallacies, and of course my favorite, ad hominem. Nothing says you don't have an argument more than reverting back to schoolyard name-calling.
You know, I bet it's a pretty safe bet that if you stop saying "There's no evidence" and such that the accusations about strawmen and fallacies will go away. There's plenty of evidence, but it's difficult to discuss when you keep saying it doesn't exist.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix image width.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-29-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5103 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 70 of 223 (316203)
05-30-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mr_matrix
05-27-2006 2:41 PM


Re: Speculations
matrix writes:
The so called transitional forms are very limited and most (if not all) of them are mistakelnly thought to be transitional but they are not.
ALL forms are transitional - including ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mr_matrix, posted 05-27-2006 2:41 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mr_matrix, posted 05-30-2006 6:40 PM RickJB has replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 223 (316366)
05-30-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
05-29-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Speculations
I keep seeing evolutionists showing off different diagrams of sequences made of fossils to show transitions. Remember, this is still your own speculations and interpretations of the fossil record.
For example, look at the bat. It is a flying mammal with fur similar to rodents and wings similar to birds. If bats go extinct and a bat fossil is found after million years in the future. Evolutionists will say that there was a rodnet (could be rat, squeril, or termite) or any small animal with fur that million years ago (which is our time) has evolved into a flying creature and then evolved into a bird. And this was the origin of birds. Then they would publish it in their books and consider it a logical evidence. However, we know in our time that rodents are not evolving into bats and bats are not evolving into different birds. But the evolutionists' speculations lead them to such belief. It might sound logical but it is not necessarily true. This type of speculation is applied on all fossils.
Similarities can be deceptive and you cannot heavily rely on them and consider them evidence. For the same hypothese that you make about the fossil record, others will make their own hypotheses around the world.
variation IS evolution.
How can you even make such a claim in the 21st century? Darwin (with his limited knowledge about cells and his lack of knowledge about genetics) assumed that variations have no limit and that variations would eventually lead to evolution. However, Mendel's genetics have showed that variations are limited and cannot lead to the formation of new species. Modern genetic studies have showed that variations within species is limited to the gene pool of the population and cannot provide "forign" traits from other orgaisms in order for them to evolve. These discoveries have conclusively proved that no matter how many generations pass, a horse (for instance) will keep breading horses and you will not find a newborn horse with wings!
what mechanism do you propose keeps genetic variation from compounding?
You can have as many combinations as you like within a population of organisms but these are limited to the gene pool as I mentioned above.
it's that there is no example you can think of that i can't fill with at least a few "transitional" species. (i dare you)
Well, whenever you encounter any example of fossils you will explain it in a hypothesis (pure imagiantion)that sound logical to you because it is based on your speculations.
so when we see a few fossils of soft creatures, and then tons and tons of harder creatures -- it's not really a suprise. there's no mystery here.
Ok! and you are willing to base all your hypotheses and believes on few fossils with soft tissues that you refer to as "precambrian" and ignore the tons of hard fossils that show rapid and enormous diversities in a short period of time which cannot be explained by an evolutionary process. (unless evolutionists make up a theory that the Cambrian explosion was 1 billion years old, since they seem to be very good at making up such imaginary theories to explain things they cant explain in reality)
um, the development of hard parts explains it rather well. hard parts fossilize better, thus more fossils. ta da.
Which is still an imaginary speculation that you invented when you said that at the Cambrian time there were only hard fossils while you have no way of proving such a claim.
what's imaginary here is the notion that humans are NOT apes. all of those skulls belong to apes, including the cromagnon one. but at what point do YOU say that it's an ape and not a human? each skull is remarkably like the one before it.
Ofcourse they remarkably resemble each other besause they are all skulls of apes. Claiming that such skulls resemble humans is based on speculations. It is like taking a skull of a dinosaur and caliming it to be the skull of a crocodile that could walk on two!
The reproduction you mentioned does create variations, but you cannot find species turning to different species as a result of variations,
yes, actually, you can. it has been observed in laboratory conditions. many, many forms of live reproduce and create successive generations much faster than humans.
Yes of course you can, if you assume that these "laboratory conditions" existed millions of years ago to evolve species by reproduction.
where in "natural selection" did you get "random?" evolution is anything but random. variation has a random aspect to that. but you accept that part. evolution is the combination of that, and the idea that there are factors (environmental, sexual, inter-species) that help "decide" who gets to pass their genes on, and who does not.
Again, you're elaborating further on reproduction and variations and they dont cause evolution into different organisms. Unless you chose to defy genetics and claim that they do!
So if you can make any more imaginary speculations regarding the fossil record, make sure to publish them and call them "scientific". Or it would be better to turn them into some japanese animes to be told as bed-time fantasy stories to kids.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 7:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Belfry, posted 05-30-2006 9:09 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 77 by MangyTiger, posted 05-30-2006 9:26 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 1:40 AM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-31-2006 2:04 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 223 (316370)
05-30-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by RickJB
05-30-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Speculations
ALL forms are transitional - including ourselves.
Realy? so does that mean that in the future we will evolve into X-men or ninja turtles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 05-30-2006 8:14 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RickJB, posted 05-31-2006 4:04 AM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 223 (316401)
05-30-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Chiroptera
05-29-2006 11:56 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
Creationists are forced to admit the existence of "micro"-evolution. The question is whether these "micro" changes can add up to "macro" evolution
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying that creationists did not believe in any adaptations within any given specie in the distant past. Am I interpreting that correctly? There never was any contention that certain organims adapt for a variety of reasons, known empirically since Mendel's experiments yielded reproducable and predictable results. The earliest evidence I have of creationists exhibiting this understanding comes from a 1928 paper, written by the equivalent of a creationist back then.
"Species are immutable. One does not become another or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.
If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind'." Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?
Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."
Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know." But God knows."
-William Williams
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
it is evidence that "macro"-evolution occurred that the fossil record provides.
If that's the case, then why have so many eminent evolutionists stated very clearly that a lack of evidence is very prevelant, and evidence of a genuine macroevolutionary process is scant?
"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." - (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." -(Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883).
"Why don't we see gradual transition in the sequences of fossils? According to Darwin, and the current neo-Darwinists, the fossil record has gaps in it because of the haphazard way in which fossilization occurs-it is bound to be an imperfect record of the history of life. But is it? Is the jerky and abrupt nature of the record really just due to 'gaps', or does it reflect the way evolution actually happened? There is a strong feeling among leading palaeontologists that the punctuated history shown by fossils reflects the way life has evolved-in leaps and bounds rather than in gradual transition. There is also a growing sense that there is much more to understanding 'macroevolution'-the large-scale picture one gets from the fossils-than the simple idea of natural selection can alone explain."- (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.23).
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 05-29-2006 11:56 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ramoss, posted 05-30-2006 9:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 05-30-2006 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 74 of 223 (316406)
05-30-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
05-30-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
Ok. you got the one thing. Species are mutable
Now, let us give a senerio.
You have a species that is mutable.. but seperated for some reason.
Each groups of those populations do not interbred with each other, for what ever reason. Each of those groups are mutable.. they change.. gradually.
Now, lets go from all those little tiny baby steps, and go and have many many thousands of little baby steps, but each of those two groups going into a different direction. Sooner or later, those two group can not interbreed. At that point.. guess what. They are different species.
That is what darwin was saying is the 'origin of species'. The fact that populations will be 'mutable' is evolution.
See how simple it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-30-2006 8:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6444
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 75 of 223 (316408)
05-30-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
05-30-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Logical fallacies and evidence
The earliest evidence I have of creationists exhibiting this understanding comes from a 1928 paper, written by the equivalent of a creationist back then.
Interesting. So we see that creationists were as confused in 1928 as they are now. There failure to understand the theory of evolution was as bad in 1928 as it is now. Their propensity to argue against a strawman existed in 1928, just as it exists today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-30-2006 8:56 PM Hyroglyphx 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