|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD | |||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
thanks S1tk, but this is not your source is it?
quote: Note first off, that it is a bird. That means it is part of the lineage from dinosaur to bird. Second, that modern birds are not direct descendants of Archaeopteryx also does not mean that it is not transitional, as it is also clearly labeled. Third, given that most bird species went extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, it is not surprising that modern birds are not direct descendants of one pre-extinction type of bird, but of a close relative.
you cant even tell me what temperature its blood was or distinguishing features that could help identify it properly. Curiously, the article linked provided many such distinguishing features. Here are some more: Dinosauria On-Line
quote: Note that these are features not found in dinosaur ancestors, while this list: Dinosauria On-Line
quote: These are features found in dinosaurs but not in modern birds.
.in your eyes its transitional already.youve made a conclusion without giving it time or considering new evidence.how is that true science? No, it is transitional in my mind because it has features intermediate between ancestral forms and descendant form, features that don't exist in previous organisms, and that are more derived in later forms. It is transitional because the evidence shows this is so: Review definition of transitionalReview of Evidence Result: the evidence matches the definition Conclusion: it is transitional Should new evidence show that a different conclusion is warranted, I'll be happy to look at it. Curiously that is precisely how science works. By practical necessity science only considers all the evidence that is known in deriving the best explanation for that evidence. And it doesn't wait for something new to show up - it looks for it. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and again, S1tk,
once again you need more than 1 fossil and a few drawings to convince anyone who doesnt share your faith.closer inspection to me that could be anything.im always amused at evolutionists unseemly haste to claim what is transitional on the merest hint of evidence.give it time. Again, this is not "unseemly haste" it is looking at the evidence that exists. Again, we look at the definition of transitional fossil: A transitional fossil is defined as one that shares characteristics with older life forms and with later life forms, and that the characteristics shared with later life forms did not exist during the time of the older life forms, while they develop further in later life forms. There are several such traits listed in the article on Tiktaalik that show that it too meets the definition of a transitional fossil. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
quote: It is also intermediate between Panderichthys and later forms. Panderichthys - Wikipedia
quote: Notice that these features are less developed than they are in Tiktaalik, while still being more developed than in lobe-finned fish. Then there are the later forms like Ichthyostega: Ichthyostega - Wikipedia
quote: Again, features that appeared in earlier transitional fossils are more developed, and they become even more developed in later tetrapods. What we see is that Tiktaalik fits between these two fossils, in time, in features, in habitat. All three are transitional fossils by a review of the definition presented above, and by a review of the evidence of intermediate forms and traits. It is not a "rush to judgment," nor is it based on a "preconceived conclusion," to note that these are in fact transitional fossils: that is what the evidence shows. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
okay, S1tk, I'll recap:
Evidence presented by you = 0 No definition of your "Amazing Magical Yeast" concept or revision of it to be a logically derived organism based on actual definitions of evolution. No evidence of any "genetic barrier" to evolution, nor any refutation of the evidence that shows the ability of quite different lineages to evolve similar forms.
Dropped, like a hot rock, is any discussion of evolution or speciation, the theory of evolution, the cladograms of life showing development from bacterial form to all currently known existing life forms. Failure to engage the evidence of evolution, speciation and the diversity of life produced by these simple mechanisms as shown by the greenish warbler, pelycodus and foraminifera. Blank refusal to deal with the genetic similarity between human and chimp.
after reading ancestors tale and taking into account the replies here im still no further along in my pursuit of the holy grail of bacteria that can evolve into higher lifeforms. Your "pursuit" seems to be comprised of a fair bit of blank denial of evidence. A person who is convinced they cannot walk across the country will never try.
reptile to mammal is 99% obvious that it doesnt happen but we have a transitional that may or may not turn up trumps And we have not one, but hundreds. The evidence of therapsids shows 100% development of mammalian ear from reptile ear, an ear that no reptile has, but all mammals have. Just hitting the high points:
Each of these groups represent several sub-groups, each representing several species, each one including multiple fossils. I provided a link before and suggested that you browse it as it is interactive. You can even work your way to Primates and Hominoidea Depending on how far you are willing to walk.
im done debating you i dont bother repeating myself.its a waste of time Ah, the old "declare victory and RUN from the debate and the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. Delusion is like that:
Now there are many levels of delusion, from plain ignorance coupled with poor or wrong teaching, or people telling you falsehoods, up to clinical delusion. Simple forms can be cured with education and checking facts for validity.
i will research the orca shark thing tho but i suspect its just another atheist red herring. Atheist? Curiously that includes a lot of christians, including Linnaeus. How about realist people that cover the full spectrum of beliefs. Here's a hint: Great white shark - Wikipedia
quote: Elasmobranchii - Wikipedia
quote: Chondrichthyes - Wikipedia
quote: They don't have a bone in their body. Orca - Wikipedia
quote: Notice that you have to go to the phylum level of Chordata to include both organisms. Chordate - Wikipedia
quote: That's a pretty big group. Classification is by existing observable traits. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : dl Edited by RAZD, : hint Edited by RAZD, : clarty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey S1tk, perhaps what we need is a different tack.
im still no further along in my pursuit of the holy grail of bacteria that can evolve into higher lifeforms. Part of your problem is that you know so little about how biology works and the process of evolution, that you can't formulate your question with any meaning. Do you mean the first life form? The earliest life known is 3.5 million years old, and it is a cyanobacteria:
Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria quote: No currently known older rocks have fossils (not fossil carrying types of rocks).
quote: Cyanobacteria used photosynthesis for energy, and over time changed the atmosphere of the planet by adding more oxygen in gas form. Note that these cyanobacteria are also multi-cellular in a simple way: they form threads (complex multi-cellular forms also have specialization, where different cells take on different tasks). Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
quote: The forms of life before that are unknown, nor is the number of different forms that existed before this known. If you are interested in this question, then we should look at the Three Domain System and Carl Woese:
quote: Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia
quote: Protocell - Wikipedia
quote: Note that all "higher" life forms are eukaryotes. Note that these eukaryotes did not evolve from the first (theoretical Progenote or known Cyanobacteria) life, but from some archea organisms that evolved later. Do you mean the first life eukaryote/s? The first known eukaryotes occur in the fossil record long after the first fossils of life.
quote: That means 1.4 to 2.3 billion years after the first known cyanobacteria. It is possibly there were several different varieties of basal eukaryotes, once a nucleus formed (if a current theory concerning the incorporation of some single cell-life forms inside other single-cell life forms is correct), because there are fundamentally different groups of eukaryotes:
quote: Rather than all eukaryotes coming from one single archaea we see multiple branches into very distinct groups. http://podospora.igmors.u-psud.fr/more.html
quote: If the cyanobacteria is connected directly to eukaryotes it is as chloroplasts in plants. Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
quote: Eukaryotes are fundamentally different from bacteria and archaea, probably more different than any life form since. All "higher" multi-cellular life forms are eukaryotes, and the branch that leads to animal life is only one of many of the branches within Eukaryotes, while plants are on an entirely different branch. Do you mean the first multi-cellular eukaryotic life ? Multicellular structures are not unique to eukaryotes. There are many kinds of multicellular bacteria.
Sandwalk: Multicellular Bacteria
quote: It is likely that multicellular forms developed many times, in bacteria and in eukaryotes. Within eukaryotes multicellular life developed several times as well, as multicellular forms occur in branches after they have diverged. Multicellular plants and multicellular animals do not have a multicellular common ancestor. Summary Thus we can see that no single form of life sequentially budded off increasingly complex life forms, rather all life evolved generation by generation, and those that took a step towards more complexity were different organisms from their ancestors. In other words, there is no "Amazing Magical Yeast" ... and searching for it is like looking for a straw man in a stack of needles. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024