|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,410 Year: 3,667/9,624 Month: 538/974 Week: 151/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 1/4 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Transitional fossils not proof of evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3797 days)  Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
...but because we've never seen any trains (macroevolution) at all.
If the above is not 'macroevolution' as I understand it, then I have missed the train completely. I am sure that others have also impressed upon you similar examples of such macroevolutionary changes, as well as the transitional forms. I am sure that someone has explained the idea of microveolutionary steps leading to macroevolutionary changes, but perhaps not. What we see in the fossil record, are the snapshots of microevolution that highlight the macroevolutionary changes in populations over time. It's like the pictures your parents might have taken of you throughout your childhood. A snapshot record of your life, that may have missed otherwise important developmental steps but given you an overall picture of how you grew. The fossil record is just such an album of the development of life on Earth, except we're not the parents and we don't know all the answers to how it happened. We have a pretty good idea, but we're still missing some of the "birthday party" pictures that could help us elucidate the past.
Non-directed panspermia concludes one thing that evolution overlooks, or at least makes a plea that many evolutionists are indifferent to; that "life comes from life." If no one can demonstrate that life cannot come from non-life, then a strictly naturalistic explanation of evolution is completely undermined. No, it just begs the question of how the alien life-forms evolved. The question is now, "What is their evolutionary past?" And this still doesn't intrude upon or trump evolutionary theory. Whether it is panspermia or abiogenesis, evolution happened, and that is what the ToE is all about.
Truth, is truth and the truth shall set us free. Even if I didn't like the truth, truth is better than falsehood. I don't believe I can subscribe to your version of what science does. To me, science is a search for understanding. "Truth" as I understand your meaning, is a philosophical concept that might mean "proven" and in science nothing is proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So much to cover.
I don't understand how you could interpret this as a logic fallacy. I've dealt with this part already, but if you still don't understand how this is a logical fallacy, then you have a steeper learning curve to climb. Let me give you an example that may help: Premise 1: absence of evidence is evidence of absencePremise 2: there is no independently verified evidence of supernatural behavior Conclusion: No supernatural beings exist: The absence of evidence for Supernatural Beings therefore is proof that they do not exist -- OR one or both of the premises are false. If premise #2 is false, then all you need to do is provide the evidence that invalidates it. If premise #2 cannot be invalidated, then it is true, and then either the conclusion is true or premise #1 is invalid.
There is no direct evidence of God and I don't pretend, unlike my counterparts concerning their theory, that such direct evidence does exist. But perhaps I will provide all the positive evidence of a Creator in one of the ID rooms. Oops. Looks like it's down to either P1 false or conclusion valid.
From everyone's logical standpoint, ... No, from the standpoint of logic. Logic does not depend on your viewpoint or my viewpoint or the viewpoint of a small green crab at the edge of the ocean, logic depends on the rational structure of the argument and the validity of previous arguments to build a structure that is self consistent. If the structure is self contradictory then at least one of the premise arguments must be false. In this it is like math, independent of opinions and feelings and the desires of organic organisms.
Do you see gradual change because you want to see a gradual change, or is there actual evidence for said gradations? I see what the evidence says. The link I gave you for the foraminifers shows gradual change over the last 65 million years. I see the same evidence being shown to Stephen Jay Gould:
... Gould, now among the most famous scientists in the world, directed Arnold's Harvard dissertation. But there's no room for that here, he says. Arnold maintains a warm professional relationship with his former mentor, who paid his lab a visit when FSU's Distinguished Lecture Series brought him to campus last year. Gould concedes that the forams don't fit his model of punctuated equilibrium, Arnold said. If the leading proponent of PunkEek sees this as an example of gradual change then your wanting anyone else to be influenced by their desired outcome rather than a professional interest in the truth falls rather flat as an argument. This is also attacking the person and not the argument (by implying motives to what people say rather than address what they say). This is the definition of an There is evidence, I have provided you with one sample (and all I needed was one to invalidate your claim that there were none eh?). Deal with the evidence.
Evolutionary theory has always predicted that innumerable transitional forms would be found, and yet, all that has been presented is a handful of debatable forms. Evolutionary theory predicted that there would be transitional forms yes, but not that they would necessarily be found. There have been enough found to satisfy the theory. Do they need to find every single one to validate the theory? Nope. Why? Because it is not necessary once transitionals have been found that clearly demonstrate evolution from one species to another. Once this has been observed, then assuming the same action in other species evolution is not asking for anything new to happen.
For this reason, Gould and Eldridge had to put their thinking caps on and brainstorm. What they came up with, was punctuated equilibrium - an assertion even in their own eyes. Which several professional evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, dismiss. They don't see PunkEek as anything new to evolution, or that the time scales involved show any sudden 'rapid' evolution.
Here's my question: Why, after so many evolutionists have conceded that the fossil record is pathetically incomplete, ... It's not "pathetically" incomplete because gaps are expected due to the nature of fossils, plus the fact that fossil collection is younger than the USof(N)A, and also due to our rudimentary but ever growing understanding and knowledge of life on this planet.
... do so many people in here still insist on telling me that it isn't so? Because you equivocate from one side of the argument to the other. There are plenty of fossils to show that (a) evolution has occurred on a grand scale on this planet, (b) there are transitions between many forms of species. There are not enough transitions and fossils to satisfy those who always ask for the next gap to be filled, who - whenever shown a transition - ask about the two new gaps each side of it.
... And if it is this incomplete, and parts are missing, then what evidence is there that these creatures are inter-related to begin with, if no immediate evidence is available? All the evidence that is needed: they show the same traits, developed from the same ancestral population in the same geographical location from the same time period. Do you have evidence of personal ancestors back to 2000 BC? If there are any gaps in that record, then how do you know you are human eh?
Its an assertion. Sadly, as much as you would like to believe it, there is much more to it than just plain assertion.
And for however much sense it may or may not make sense, theoretically, it is strictly another part of theoretical biology, awaiting the seal of approval. It makes sense because it is logical and the theory fits the available evidence better than any other theory. The theory makes predictions that can invalidate the theory, and when the theory is not invalidated then it makes more predictions that can invalidate the theory. It's almost like theories seek self distruction. Those that are not invalidated are considered "robust" but that's about as good as it gets. That is why it is more than just assertion: it has been tested. And that is all that is asked of any science: there is no mystic "seal of approval" -- all there is to science is theory, prediction, testing, and observation. When any theory is invalidated science moves on to the next theory.
Its false because its false? Quote mining already? The proper quote is (1) it is false (a) because your premise (above) is false, (2) it is false (b) because probability has no way to restrict a possibility from happening,
So, because anything could happen, we should just take the theory on the basis of face value without any corroborating evidence? No, just that in order to claim that something could NOT happen you have to show that it absolutely could NOT happen, not just a probability. What is the probability that an asteroid would wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and make room for little mammals? You can't calculate it because you don't have enough information. If you don't have enough information to calculate the odds then any claim to know them is an argument from ignorance and incredulity -- another logical fallacy.
Listen, the evidence is overwhelmingly not in favor of macroevolution. It has happened. What more evidence do I need?
And the evidence of such is within its lack to formulate a cogent argument for itself. 
So far, I've recieved nothing but conflicting views from the people on EvC. Some appear to be gradualists and others appear to be in favor of punctuated equilibira. With both parties, I've been expected to take their arguments, however weak and repetitious it might be, on the basis of conjecture. What's worse, they don't even realize that their conclusions differ greatly from their buddies conclusion, yet they claim parity. Or you don't understand how the arguments can fit together, that both PunkEek and gradual change over time can occur and do occur in current life and in the fossil record. You keep wanting it to be a strawman version of one OR the other, and your version in BOTH cases is wrong. Evolution is change in species over time -- sometimes faster than other times, sometimes not so fast, but always change in species over time.
What does that mean? I've reached a conclusion not based on my own premises, containing elements not in my premises, and thus shown to be invalid? I'm sorry but could you clarify exactly what that means? It's the third category of logical fallacy in your argument. To be a valid construction every element in a conclusion must be presented in a premise first. Instead your conclusion was something like: {premise} The sky is blue{premise) Blue lightwaves are absorbed by molecules in the air {conclusion} Therefore we can swim in the ocean. At what point is the prediction going to materialize??? When life is observed changing over time: that is the most mundane level of prediction of evolution, and it is what our medical profession is based on eh?
... to tweak genes to cause a macroevolutionary process in a pristine lab ... But "macro" evolution -- as first defined (speciation) -- has been observed in the lab and in nature, and all it is, is just more evolution. What level do you think scientists are expecting to see evolve in their labs? What do you think "macro"evolution is?
Cripes, we've been waiting for for like a 137 years to seal the deal, but the evolutionary model is just as impotent and anemic now as it was 137 years ago. Only to those who ignore the evidence of the world. The rest of us have moved on to the next step: using the results. Impotent and anemic? I trust you don't take any antibiotics or other preventative medicines or vaccines and don't think fertility medicine works.
Even if you say that evolution takes thousands and millions of years, you would be forgetting that by odds alone, at least 10 species should be experiencing a genuine transition. ROFLOL!!! This argument is false on two grounds: (1) to calculate the odds you must know all the variables in the system. Show me the numbers and the actual calculation for those odds, show that you know the system so well that you can calculate those odds (ie - well enough that you don't need to calculate the odds). Note, I've already told you WHY such number arguments are invalid, yet here you are using it again. (2) the real kicker: ALL species are in transition. Every one all around the world, every variation, every mutation. "By odds alone" then your argument has been invalidated.
Its no mystery that adherents to evolution predominantely come from atheistic circles. Forgive me for generalizing and making the inferrence that the two are married. Take a concensus and see how many evolutionst are athiests and I'm pretty certain that a very low percentage is theistic in any way. (1) how does this address the issue of "people who are philosophically opposed to evolution" making it into something it is not eh? Other than turning the argument from evolution into something it is not eh? (2) are you aware of how many theists have absolutely no problem with evolution? Or even how many christians have no problem with evolution? See the Clergy List ("We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. "). You can be "pretty certain" all you want, it won't help you being dead wrong either. It's just another argument from incredulity.
"Things change, therefore evolution is a fact" is not an argument in support of evolution. Evolution is change in species over time.Change in species over time has been observed. Therefore Evolution has been observed. Therefore Evolution is a fact. Your denial notwithstanding the evidence speaks for itself. Eloquently.
You disagree that its a gross over-simplification? No, it is just what it is: Evolution is change in species over time.
Changes within the genome do happen, and I suspect, will always happen until the end. You don't need to suspect it, as it has been observed. Change in species over time: evolution.
... But first of all, evolutionary theory tactily asserts that an incline progression exists, ... Evolution asserts no such thing. Only people who do not understand evolution use this strawman characterization to try to make evolution into something that it is not. Evolution only involves change over time, not directed change, not change with a purpose, not change with an end.
...while I think its the opposite. Bully for you. Unfortunately that is just an(other) argument from incredulity and ignorance, and it completely ignores what evolution is all about: change in species over time.
In other words, a loss of information ... What is information? If a feature evolves in a species and then later disappears in a subsequent species which one lost information?
... is far more prevelant the cause of such gradations, ... So, some are increases and some are decreases eh? Natural selections will differentiate which is better for survival regardless of what value you put on it. Some time {X} is selected and sometimes not{X} is selected. Mutation (or change in "information") is only part of the story.
And when this intermingling occurs, another branch will occur in that particular specie to create yet another subspecie. It happens all the time. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying: the end varieties of the ring species intermingle - live in the same area - BUT DO NOT BREED! They do not breed because their features are sufficiently different that they are not recognized as being of the same species.
There is a gulf affixed between the classes that are seemingly inpenetrable. ... Now try answering the question: What stops "micro" evolution from becoming "macro" evolution, especially when the distinction is one of human imposition? What mechanism stops mutations and where on the DNA strands does this occur?
We have tried very hard to create functional chimeras, by splicing DNA segments together. This has nothing to do with evolution.
But, we've never witnessed (which is a critical step in assigning something as empirical science) these necessary gradations to lead to a transspecific evolution. Again, Change in species over time has been observed. And speciation has been observed. Speciation is all that is necessary to explain the diversity of life. What do you consider a "transspecific" event?
Humans are related to humans, chimps are related to chimps, dogs are related to dogs, snails are related to snails. There is zero evidence to support that man an amoeba share a common ancestor. Keep telling yourself that, over and over. Too bad it is just another argument from incredulity and ignorance. Zero evidence would mean that there is no comparison between the DNA of an amoeba and humans, that they would not have the same genetic structure, the same molecules, and genes in their sequences that could be exchanged to no ill effect of either party.
Yes. Most major organs in the body couldn't possibly have derrived, little by little. In other words, a partial eye serves no function without all of its contrivances in place from the inception. PRATT. If not a PRABT. Please do a little research before you make such statements. Just consider that I have a friend with partial vision. Do you want to tell him that he would be just as well off with his remaining eye-sight removed? Do you know how many eyes in existing organisms are missing whole elements in "human" eyes? Do you know how many different KINDS of eyes are used by organisms? All this is amounts to one more argument from incredulity and ignorance. Just because YOU can't figure it out, doesn't mean that others haven't -- or more to the point, that nature hasn't.
Something Archaeopteryx's feathers and wings would have served no concievable relevance to its survival for it to inexplicably create wings. Because you cannot conceive of a possible survival benefit does not mean that one did not exist. Feathers could have evolved first for thermoregulation or camouflage or to suddenly look BIG to a predator. YOU don't know, so you can't really say one way or the other.
Because it often acts detrimentally. So? Evolution is change in species over time. When the change allows survival, then more individuals survive. When the change inhibits survival, then more individuals die. When enough individuals die the species becomes extinct: so? When one species dies it will create an ecological void that will provide increased opportunity for other species. This too has been observed. Evolution does not care one way or the other about species survival.
Here is one example of such. So? There are many examples. Sickle Cell Anemia is another: one copy, better immunity from malaria, two copies, die. What is important is survival, not what any specific feature is. If the feature leads to survival of the individual so that it can have better reproductive success then it will be spread in the population, whether you think it is bad or not.
Its not that I can't concieve of it, its that I've never seen it!!! Or you haven't looked, or you are looking for the wrong thing (ie - you want to see a cat become a dog, and dismiss all other speciation events because they are not cats becoming dogs).
If avian are the progeny of saurian lineage, I expect to see another transition along these lines. I'm not asking for a Hopeful Monster, I'm just asking for an obvious transition that we can clearly identify. What about from reptile to mammal - where jaw bones become ear bones, and in the middle you have species with two jaw joints, one where the reptile joint was and one where the mammal jaw joint will be? Therapsids - Mammal Transition Series
I wouldn't call a bird with an orange blaze on its beak, where the ancestral populace has a yellowish beak a revolutionary breakthrough. SKRRRREEEEEEEEETTTCCCHHHH!!!!That sound was the sound of moving goalposts. First you wanted something half-way to something else, now you want a revolutionary breakthrough. What's the first sign of a revolution? There are exceptions to Mendellian law, ... As in every time there is a mutation or a nutritional deficiency. You need to move forward from the 18th century into modern genetics.
... however, those exceptions are almost always injurious. Again, this is false thinking, and it has been pointed out before. You keep expecting evolution to be something that it is not, and "almost always injurious" is (a) not a problem for evolution -- at all -- and (b) it is a value that YOU place on the change in species over time, and not one that the organism necessarily suffers. Let me try another analogy to see if I can expose your misconception: many people buy lottery tickets, in spite of the evidence that you rarely win anything in one. If I compare the "almost always injurious" mutations to "almost always lose" lottery, I don't think you would claim that no-one ever wins the lottery eh? If I compare the random choice of numbers by people who buy lottery tickets to random mutations, I don't think you would argue that any one person needs to win because of their choice. And there are billions of mutation lotteries going on in every generation of every population. Not one is guaranteed to win, nor even have any great probability of winning, but the population as a whole is very likely going to produce a lottery winner. That is all mutation and natural selection are about: mutations provide the raw change - the ticket holders - and natural selection chooses the winning combinations (from grand prize winners to those who get a free ticket in the next lottery).
Aside from which, natural selection should remove most mutations, simply by the virtue that that so many act adversely. It does.
As I stated elsewhere, how would Archeaopteryx stave off annhilation? It didn't. Last time I checked it was extinct eh? It survived as long as it did because it was better than the competition.
How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? Think about it. (1) How do you know it (or rather its ancestors) had "stump-like appendages" in the first place - do you have fossil evidence of this? Or is this YOUR conjecture on what a "missing link" would look like? (2) I have thought about it, and I see no problem with the evolution of wings, not just in birds, but in insects (several different varieties) and mammals (several more varieties) and even frogs (see "Wallace's Flying Frog" this frog glides on its webbed feet - Wallace almost beat Darwin to publishing the theory of evolution btw). The problem does not involve useless intermediate steps or a lack of imagination -- nature has obviously solved the problem several different times for several different reasons. (3) What do you think of the feathers on the rest of a birds body? What benefit do they convey to the organism? What is the difference between a flying bird and a flightless bird? What is the difference between young birds that cannot fly and ones slightly older that can? Do ground dwelling birds, where the young are left unattended for long periods while they cannot fly, get wiped out by 'fat-kid' eating predators? (4) Feathers likely are modified scales and the first feathers were likely more like the downy features of young birds, the inner feathers of many birds (goose down for instance). Growing from that to more substantial non-flight feathers, such as on all flight-less birds is also not challenging to either ones imagination or to the way nature does things. The feathers on flapping arms can assist an organism to climb a tree or a steep bank (membership required to read the nature article, but you can also read under figure 2 on page 4 here). Things like this don't happen all at once, no matter how often you think this is the case.
The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. ... What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? It doesn't prompt me to wonder at all, because this is a false conception of evolution. Again you try to make evolution something it isn't. First off, NOTHING prompts ANY changes in species, so you can lose that false assumption from the start. The fact that your argument relies on this false premise so much just shows that (a) you do not understand evolution and (b) because you do not understand you try to make it into something it is not. It is you who ASSUME useless intermediate stages when there is NO evidence this was the case (and certainly this does not NEED to be the case), this is a typical creationist strawman argument. Being a false premise, any conclusion based on it is invalid.
Tell me: What advantage did this animal have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. And we could expect the same for all of the rest. Well I do feel sorry for the fat kid being gobbled up like that, but you miss the critical point: all archy needed to do was outrun the competition -- and in this case "competition" includes other prey that a predator may chose as an easier target (and one with more meat on it). It may also be likely that archy was a predator of smaller dinosaurs, it had teeth after all eh? Perhaps being able to drop from trees on smaller prey was a survival benefit sufficient for the proto-Archeaopteryx to survive and reproduce eh?
I wonder that all the time. I can never get a clear answer. And when they commit to an answer they like, that fits preconcieved notions about the geologic column, they change the empirical dating methods to fit the newer model. I asked what YOU think - "How much change and how fast do you think this takes" - "this" being "A large taxonomical jump" - not what you think others or evolution thinks it is.
Yes, I realize that it is a human construct, which is why I don't place too much stock in it. LOL, it is only the major part of your argument about large taxonomical jumps occurring any day now, spontaneously, right in front of your very eyes, eh? So, how big a change and how fast do YOU think this takes?
I'm just using it as a referrence on how 'looks' don't constitute lineage. For instance, my parents were looking at a magazine when they stumbled on a model for a Guess add. This kid looked exactly like me. It was really freaky. He could've easily passed for my twin. And in jest, I showed a couple and they asked me when I was doing headshots. The point is, he looked like me but was not anywhere in my immmediate lineage. It was purely coincidental. I feel the same about human and simian lineage. Sorry, I didn't know you were a chimp.  No, this is just another (in a long line) of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. If it had been a picture of a baby rhinoceros I might be impressed, but similarity between two HUMAN specimens is exactly what would be expected. It is more than just similarity at a gross level, it is in the details, and when the details are combined with locality - in time and space - then likelyhood of relatedness increases. It's like motive AND opportunity AND access eh? There are many instances of similar appearing species in totally different localities and times even today, and they are not considered related for good reasons that have nothing to do with separation. Compare american deer and african antelope and you will see many similarities, and one unfamiliar with the finer points would be likely to assume that they were similar creatures, even closely related. Look at the finer details and you will find features in one that are not in the other and features in the other that are not in the one. The people who do this are so familiar with the bones that they can (in many cases) properly identify a species from a single bone. There is a level of detail there that you are ignoring with your "gross oversimplification" of the process.
How many quotes from the inventors of the theory do I need to pull up to obliterate the typical, textbook case of Darwinian gradualism? There aren't enough. Why? (1) Because this is the logical fallacy of argument from authority. All that is needed is for the "authority" theory to be false. Reality has a way of doing that to any theory. I've also shown you a specific case where Gould recognized that gradual change had occurred. (2) Because "textbook ... Darwinian gradualism" never existed in the real world in the first place. Even Darwin had models with differing rates of evolution. Gould and Eldridge don't say what you think they say, they are just tying the change in rates of evolution to fossils and saying that when evolution occurs at a rate faster than average that you are less likely to see transitional fossils (of the faster changes) and when it occurs at a rate slower than average that you are more likely to see transitional fossils (of the slower changes). And of course transitional fossils during periods of slow change in species are not likely to be seen as transitional because they are so similar eh?
Instead of a stepwise evolution, PE teaches us that we should expect long periods of stasis coupled with rapid bursts of change, thus invalidating the need for a step-by-step evolutionary model. False. PunkEek says that occasionally evolution occurs faster than average, and occasionally evolution occurs slower than average. IN ALL CASES evolution occurs. There is still change in species over time, even during the periods of "stasis" -- your "stop and start" image is a false representation of PunkEek. Consider the Coelacanth -- a class of organisms that appear to be in a very long state of stasis (along with sharks, alligators, and many other species). But Coelecanths are still evolving, the species alive today are not the species that were alive 65 million years ago.
That's because so much of it has to do with the anatomical similarities. Whenever one organism has a similar structure with another, we should expect to see genetic similarites. Please. The genetic markers are NOT where they code for "anatomical similarities" but in areas where there can be (and are) multiple mutations that do not affect the well being of the organisms. Why should different species have the same mutation in the same place? Let's pick one that is "injurious" -- the loss of the ability to synthesis vitamin C. This loss in ability could occur in a large number of different ways, so why do chimps and humans have exactly the same gene sequence damaged in exactly the same way? Why should humans even have a damaged system like this is a valid enough question, but add to it why should chimps, and why should it be exactly the same damaged system?
Allow me to paraphrase through all of the fluff. And yet you failed to address my point. Evolution still occurs during periods of "stasis" and PunkEek is NOT a stop and go process, no matter how many times you state that it is. Evolution is change in species through time. There is no rate of change per decade set by some cosmic clock or other. The rate of change is in response to the variations in the environment, because natural selection operates to maintain fitness to the environment.
Are you referring to the Tiktaalik Roseae? I only ask because evolutionists thought the Coelacanth were fish that experimented with walking because its anatomical makeup of its fins. As it turns out, the Coelacanth do nothing remotely akin to any type of 'walking.' What a typical creationist assertion. Let's see, the last pre-historic Coelacanth was 65 million years ago, and this species evolved into the first tetrapods ... 350 to 400 million years ago. Cute trick eh? No, Coelacanths were always described as related to the type of fish that evolved into land walking animals, and the reasons for proposing Coelacanth as related to an ancestor of land animals are still valid, and form the background against which the search for Tiktaalik Roseae was undertaken -- where it was, and in the age sedimentary deposits that it was. A big difference between science and creationism, is that science updates its notebook based on more recent finds, while creationists still use old ones. The ancestors of Tiktaalik Roseae are still lobe-finned fish. Note this quote from Dinofish.com: evolutionary puzzle:
The coelacanth appears to be a cousin of Eusthenopteron, the fish once credited with growing legs and coming ashore-360 million years ago- (today scientists prefer to cite the tongue-twisting fossil candidates: icthyostega, panderichthyes, and acanthotega) as the ancestor(s) of all tetrapods (amphibians,reptiles,and mammals)including ourselves. Then note from Tiktaalik roseae and the Origins of Tetrapods:
The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, ... And below Panderichthys in the graphic of evolution is ... Eusthenopteron. Gosh -- look at that, not only do we have a lot more of those pesky gaps filled in the last 70 some odd years since the "living fossil" was first found, but the basic trend from Eusthenopteron to tetrapod land walker is STILL there. 'Tik' is just tacked in the middle -- right where it belongs.
I'm not sure what this has to do with evolution. Can you elaborate? It's an example of what PunkEek would look like at the time. Take some future paleontologists digging up fossils and they are as likely to find the first starling fossil in california as in new york, while the original habitat (europe) has been destroyed by tectonic action. I considered continuing through other posts of yours but I think you will find this one more than long enough.
Dude, how long is this post? Do you want your questions answered? Do you want your mistakes corrected? If you concentrated on one issue and resolved that before moving on to the next, there would not be the need to respond to you at length. If you want to, chose ONE thing to talk about and keep your post to one paragraph to state your position. Now all you need to do is concentrate your argument on one or two issues, in order to deal with the amount of feedback you will get. That is the only real way to get shorter responses, and who knows -- you may learn to avoid the mistakes one would otherwise make when posting assertion after assertion. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days)  Posts: 3228 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omnivorous Member  Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Heh. Who you talkin' to? I'm the guy that sees the fingerprints of macroevolution on a regular basis. Say, with two closely related species of Eleutherodactylus living on opposite sides of the same ridge with a transitional hybrid population between them. I don' need no steenkin' fossils!
On the other hand, in spite of the striking morphological differences between the different varieties of Brassica olercea, for better or worse taxonomists have placed them in the same species - and hence by definition can't be considered evidence of macroevolution. Nice try on the save, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
True enough. I never pretended to understand them anyway. I guess it would boil down to whether the creationists think broccoli, cabbage and brussel sprouts were different "kinds".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6496 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nwr Member  Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3797 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
In my best Homer impersonation:
"DOH!" (the sad thing is that I was so intent on showing evidence of macroevolution I didn't bother on checking what species they were. It sure is a great example of the power of artificial selection though.  )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
