|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
The questions of "what happened" and "how it happpened" are related but separate. Macroevolution falls mostly in the realm of "what happened". Microevolution is foundational to the question of "how it happened" since it shows mechanisms that are plausibly capable of explaining what has happened.
If want to deal with the "what happened" question, the issue is one of providing an explanation for the major patterns observed in our study of life - including the past life. One example is that - even using the Linnaean taxonomy of Darwin's time life may be arranged into a nested tree to a very good explanation. This is not typically true of objects designed by humans. However such a result would be the expected outcome of a process based on "descent with modification" - evolution.
Niles Eldredge did a study on the development of trombones and found it to be quite different from what we see in living beings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: Which does not speak well of creationists.
quote: Since the Flood could not possibly produce the fossil record your view is not even remotely sensible. The order of the fossil record refutes it (as does a lot of other evidence).
quote: In reality it would be quite strange for it to be a single sediment - most formations are mixed. But otherwise it is a. entirely sensible view, unlike yours.
quote: Imagine people actually caring about evidence and reason rather than mindlessly worshipping you! Even when they must know that you will lie about them for daring to defy you!
quote: Again your idea is nuts. First, you severely underrate the time needed. Second, you completely ignore the time between speciation events which is the vast bulk of it anyway. Third, the time is not calculated based on evolution are timescales anyway.
quote: You are not making sense here. The only order is the historical succession of species which will naturally be represented in the fossil record.
quote: Which is also nuts since a worldwide Flood would not be expected to produce sandstorms - which is how some fossils were originally buried. It isn’t even a sensible objection - even if the Flood would produce suitable conditions it hardly makes it the only explanation. And we already know that the Flood couldn’t produce the fossil record anyway.
quote: Or once people properly understand the situation it is hard to fool them into believing crazy nonsense.
quote: Perhaps you should take the time to come up with some viable alternative interpretations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Making ridiculous false accusations only proves that you are anti-science. If you don’t want people knowing it, don’t go around shoving it the proof in their faces. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: No there isn’t
quote: That’s part of the evidence.
quote: We don’t actually have continuous deposition anywhere. But continental drift is certainly not going to stop deposition. All that happens is that as the continents drift apart you are going to tend to get different deposits, in the newly-separated regions, as would be expected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: In your scenario it would have been quite drastically disturbed (especially as a lot of it would still be soft sediment). I don’t believe the slower rates we observe now would have caused huge disruption.
quote: You are making no sense. Deposition is continuing now with the same sort of “disruption” - the tectonic plates are still moving.
quote: Have you actually checked what happened to the British Isles at that time (if you haven’t you shouldn’t even be arguing about it). But they did start drifting off - and if it doesn’t show immediately in the geology - that would be more evidence for slow rates of drift. What you are missing is that the reconstructions of continental drift comes from the geological evidence. If you are arguing that the entire local geological column was in place before the continents started moving you are creating problems for your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Not to the extent that it is even possible you could be right. There is an extensive archaeological record of Egypt going back further still.
quote: No Flood in the history, no Flood in the archaeology. You’re just mistaking myth for fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: I know that you have nothing of significance and that the weight of geological evidence thoroughly refutes your claim.
quote: That timing makes the geological evidence irrelevant. Not that it matters. There is still no Flood to be seen.
quote: Neither is the Bible. But if you believe that it is, why are you so keen to interpret it as making false claims ? It’s not very different from claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Things you made up are not “REAL evidence”, Faith. It’s way past time you learned that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: I think that you know that it isn’t true. Certainly you don’t have any real evidence of any significance. While we have plenty of evidence against your claims.
quote: Just more of your usual false accusations.
quote: Like your claim that there’s no erosion between strata ? That was made up, for one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Really ? Bird-like footprints were discovered in Triassic strata. If remains of the creature that made them were discovered it could prove that birds were not descended from dinosaurs.
quote: Plenty of it is. If radiometric dates turned out to completely disagree with the relative dates from earlier geology, radiometric dating methods would have been falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Only for people with ridiculously low standards. For example Message 682
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: This is a typical Faith misunderstanding. There are no horses in the Triassic, only very early mammals. And indeed this brings us to some very good evidence for evolution. Those early mammals like Morganucodon display clear transitional features, most notably in the bones related to the jaw and ear.
Others, however, define "mammals", as a group, by the possession of a special, secondarily evolved jaw joint between the dentary and the squamosal bones, which has replaced the primitive one between the articular and quadrate bones in all modern mammalian groups. Under this definition, Morganucodon would be a mammal. Nevertheless, its lower jaw retains some of the bones found in its non-mammalian ancestors in a very reduced form rather than being composed solely of the dentary. Furthermore, the primitive reptile-like jaw joint between the articular and quadrate bones, which in modern mammals has moved into the middle ear and become part of the ear ossicles as malleus and incus, is still to be found in Morganucodon. The evolution of the mammalian jaw was one of the great puzzles in evolution. However, the intermediate forms were found and the problem was solved by the fossil evidence. Evidence that would be completely unexpected if mammals were not related to reptiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: I guess that reptiles and mammals are all the same species to you, then. If not then you have to explain why intermediate forms for a transition that was hard to explain just happen to exist at the right point in the fossil record. Because dismissing evidence like that with off-hand comments that fail to address the issues is not honest argument.
quote: The real problem - that we could not understand how this transition could occur is solved by the discovery of intermediate forms. Which - especially when we add in the fact that they are discovered in the right place in the fossil record is strong evidence that the transition did occur. That you declare it impossible is not a problem for us. Science does not care about crank opinions, and nor do I.
quote: Evolution from one genome to another is not only possible, it is a virtual certainty in any population that persists for long enough. Even populations which do not change much in morphology will experience genetic drift.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
More importantly Faith removes any element of objectivity in the definition. She might as well say that humans and monkeys are the same species.
Of course she’s just trying to cover up another of her ignorant mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18059 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: i won’t bother arguing with that point since the important fact is that there are bigger differences between trilobites - so it isn’t a weird idea at all. Indeed since the trilobites and the primates are both classified as Orders it is an entirely reasonable idea. The weird idea is redefining species so it includes an entire Order.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025