|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why SHOULD they ever be found together?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why SHOULD they ever be found together? Because water is no good at taxonomy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Because of gravity. Dead things that were swimming will eventually sink. And you just cannot seriously argue that every clam and every teleost fish ever completely avoided any neighborhood that had trilobites or eurypterids or conodonts.
And those are not even a start on the hundreds of never-coexisting fossils that one can find.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
A good goal for participants in this thread is to avoid argument by way of refusing to acknowledge or understand simple and obvious evidence and arguments from the other side. Looking down the list of thread participants, each and every one has participated in discussions of this topic before. Feigning ignorance of familiar and oft-used evidence and arguments from the other side is something I will try to discourage.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have no idea what you're talking about but that's OK, I don't need to be on this thread anyway.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Admin in Message 109 writes: A good goal for participants in this thread is to avoid argument by way of refusing to acknowledge or understand simple and obvious evidence and arguments from the other side. Faith in reply writes: I have no idea what you're talking about... There you go again.
...but that's OK, I don't need to be on this thread anyway. Are you sure? Because your history is to use the threat of leaving as a debate tactic, so if you leave this time I'm going to hold you to it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Because of gravity. Oh. I thought maybe it was because the different tastes would conflict with a red wine marinara.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo nalediHomo[/i] Discovered: Homo naledi, Faith, Message 152:
... How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? ... There is information of this sequence of evolution that I have posted before, one resource is
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIESby Lenny Flank (c) 1995: quote: There are several other fossils that are in this lineage of transition detailed in the article. Please read the article to get the full transition description. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Need to move dwise post here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My post 152 from the Homo Naledi thread:
Yes I was going to leave the thread but then dwise posted this story of a creationist who converted to an evolutionist on the basis of a specific experience with a scientific journal, and I found myself pondering it and objecting to it, and I have questions I just HAVE to raise about it. It's convincing enough as presented: I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligent... The part I put in small type, about the medical students who might operate on him is just irrelevant emotional puff. Knowledge of human anatomy they certainly need, but there's no way reptile-mammal evolution could help them in the slightest to operate on a human being. Anyway, I find myself having the same sorts of questions I had about Dr. A's skulls. The supposed evolutionary sequence is just too pat, too "just so" to be realistic. Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? Doesn't evolution ever make mistakes? But of course you'll say it does, all the time, and yet this sort of perfect sequence is what you give for evidence. How did we get this neat progression of skulls from small cranial capacity to large human cranial capacity with such plausible morphological gradations from one to another of the skulls? How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? Malcolm agreed in Message 138* that the skull sequence IS artificial in the sense that "many" of the types are not considered to be in the genetic line suggested by the linear arrangement of the skulls, but thought to be separate lines of development. That alone should raise an eyebrow because the presentation obviously implies a direct line of genetic descent from one skull type to the next. Without those particular types in the genetic line, how then do you get from chimp to human skull or type to type within the human line? You've got no ladder without those. Isn't there some degree of self-delusion going on here? First, reality produces variations, not gradatons. Microevolution creates variations, not smooth gradations. I say more about this in my footnote below. There is no gradation from one trilobite type to another in the fossil record, for instance, there are only populations of different types that happen to have been buried at different levels of the strata. So why should there be gradations between skulls or ear bones rather than just many different variations? There is an enormous variety within some species of living plants for instance, each with its own qualities and characteristics, but no clear gradation. The Pod Mrcaru lizards really should have been followed up with further experiments. Other groups of pairs from the original population should also have been isolated for thirty years. Then groups of pairs from those new populations again isolated. My guess is you'd get lots of variations on lizards, assuming there was sufficient genetic diversity in the original population for that to occur. I'd guess that the chance f a similar large-headed type evolving from another random set is very low, because any particular phenotype that develops from a small isolated population is the result of the pecular gene frequencies of that small population, and those are not going to be identical from population to population. You should end up with a whole bunch of different types of lizards all from that original population. THAT is genetic reality. Linear gradation in genetic descent doesn't happen in nature, so why should it be expected in the fossil record? Yes, it sure LOOKS like it happened according to those skulls and that journal full of supposed transitional types of ear bones. I don't know the explanation but I have to doubt it all. Second, microevolution does not need the millions of years supposedly objectively dated between fossil skulls and reptile-to-mammal ear bones. As the Pod Mrcaru example shows, thirty years is plenty when you have an isolated small population, and nature should create such isolated populations frequently enough to be the explanation for the different breeds of fossils too. Dates. Sure seems open-and-shut when you've got each skull dated, each example of reptilian or mammalian ear bones dated, and they all so nicely follow one from another just as evolution says they should. It's the dating of the specimens that seals the deal, right, so unless one wants to accuse all researchers in the area of outright fraud the dates have to be accepted don't they? How can one answer that? First, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but there is certainly something odd about how this all fits together that ought not to be taken at face value. Microevolution does NOT take millions of years, as I say above. The few thousand years since the Flood is plenty of time for the variation of all those saved on the ark to have developed into the races and varieties and breeds we see today, especially given that they all had to have spread out to populate the earth from one single location, which would have involved series after series of populations splitting off from other populations and subsequently developing its own set of gene/allele frequencies. On that same thread with the Pod Mrcaru lizards Percy posted information about breeds of Jutland cattle: Our results further demonstrate the rapid diversification of the Jutland breed herds due to limited gene flow and genetic drift. The only point I'm making is that rapid diversification is not rare and it's an example not only of rapid microevolution but of the VARIETY within species that is the reality those fossil arrangements of skulls and ear bones defy. Also, if millions of years even occurred every living thing would long since have become extinct because evolution DOES "use up" genetic diversity and mutation isn't orderly enough or rapid enough to replace that diversity, especially if rapid microevolution due to changed gene frequencies with population isolation is as common as I think it is. You run out of genetic diversity and that is the end of evolution for any particular line of genetic microevolution. There is no evolution from one species to another, it is all within species. =================* Malcolm writes: Well for the most part it is an artificial arrangement, since our current understanding of human evolution indicates that many of the species which these skulls represent branched off from our line of descent from a common ancestor we shared with Chimps. This I've addressed above, but Malcolm goes on:
The reasoning we have for this common ancestor is the genetic evidence that Humans and Chimps are related, from simplistic DNA hybridisation to full genome sequencing, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes etc. Now to some, including yourself, a direct comparison between Humans and Chimps would suggest too many differences for the two species to be related, or to put it another way, for them to be related would require some ‘macroevolutionary’ change. No, I don't think this quite reflects my thinking, right now I'm absorbed with questions about the skulls which he goes on to:
The arrangement of hominin skulls illustrates the much smaller ‘microevolutionary’ changes that have occurred between populations leading up towards our own population. You did agree with this by stating that the skulls represented normal human variation, the only exception being skull A, the modern Chimp. However, when you look at skull B it has a lot more in common with skull A then it does with skull N. True, and as I did say somewhere I'm not sure if B and C are human or not. But I have problems with the arrangement of those that are most clearly human anyway. I did say they represent normal human variations, but in saying that I meant that in living reality you wouldn't find them in the just-so arrangement that implies line of descent from one to another that Dr. A's chart presents. What you would find in reality is differences between individuals but probably most clearly differences between racial groups, at least in general. One group would generally have broad faces for instance, another long faces, one prominent large teeth, another small crooked teeth, one would have short noses, another long noses, one high set prominent cheekbones, another hardly any clear cheekbones at all. GENETIC REALITY SHOWS VARIATION, IT DOES NOT SHOW LINEAR DESCENT FROM ONE TYPE TO ANOTHER. Even in isolated populations where genetic inbreeding has developed a distinctive racial appearance what you find is variation between individuals, not some gradation from individual to another or parent to child to child etc. Since this is the case with living things, why should we expect such neat linearity in the fossils that are found all over the planet that are unlikely to have any close genetic relation between them? AGAIN, WHERE ARE THE DEVIANTS IN YOUR JUST-SO SEQUENCE? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The part I put in small type, about the medical students who might operate on him is just irrelevant emotional puff. Knowledge of human anatomy they certainly need, but there's no way reptile-mammal evolution could help them in the slightest to operate on a human being.
The point, Faith, was that IF the information in the journals was all made up arbitrary evolutionist nonsense, then those students were studying arbitrary evolutionist nonsense.
Anyway, I find myself having the same sorts of questions I had about Dr. A's skulls. The supposed evolutionary sequence is just too pat, too "just so" to be realistic. Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? Doesn't evolution ever make mistakes? But of course you'll say it does, all the time, and yet this sort of perfect sequence is what you give for evidence. How did we get this neat progression of skulls from small cranial capacity to large human cranial capacity with such plausible morphological gradations from one to another of the skulls? No Faith, evolution does not make errors -- it is not a person. The reason we find such a neat pattern is because it is the history of evolution as it occurred, a little change here, a little change there, and over time creating the path from early hominid to modern man. This path has many side branches, cousins, like the Neanderthals. But the main point is that IF you have an actual evolutionary lineage, THEN there will be intermediate stages from one point to another in the fossil record. Finding intermediates confirms this.
Homo naledi is the latest find in a field with increasing numbers of intermediates between a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and modern humans. It fits neatly into the sequence shown. The similarities between (A) and (B,C) point to that common ancestor. Here is one image of possible lineage from 1998 with skull images:
Fossil Skulls! quote: Note that this is interactive on the referenced page so that you can pick a skull and get further information on it. Another version of such a tree can be seen at
The human story: We’re still here! quote: You can check these against the Talk Origins skulls picture that DrA posted: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 You can also note that the new find, Homo naledi fits into these diagrams, as does a previous find by Lee Berger of Australopithicus sediba quote: MH1 quote: Arranged by time the evolutionary trends appear. Enjoy
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? ... ... AGAIN, WHERE ARE THE DEVIANTS IN YOUR JUST-SO SEQUENCE? Again, evolution does not have a purpose or a goal, so there can be no errors, no deviations from some prescribed path. Instead what we have is the natural history of the paths taken, with incremental changes from generation to generation. Sometimes evolution ends in extinction and I suppose those could be considered your "deviants" ... but they aren't mistakes, just paths that did not pan out. The purpose of showing a path of evolution that goes from point A to point B is to show those fossils that fit along that path, it is not to show all the dead end side paths or the paths that lead to other modern critters. In other words, you are complaining about things that aren't shown not about things that don't exist. There are plenty of therapsidae that did not take the path to mammaldom, but they are not discussed in relationship to the fossils that do lie on that path.
Malcolm agreed in Message 138* that the skull sequence IS artificial in the sense that "many" of the types are not considered to be in the genetic line suggested by the linear arrangement of the skulls, but thought to be separate lines of development. That alone should raise an eyebrow because the presentation obviously implies a direct line of genetic descent from one skull type to the next. Without those particular types in the genetic line, how then do you get from chimp to human skull or type to type within the human line? You've got no ladder without those. Isn't there some degree of self-delusion going on here? (* I fixed your link to point to Malcolm's post using mid=769316 instead of msg=138) No, it is rather being open-minded: instead of claiming that each fossil represents an individual on the specific path to Homo sapiens descent, that they could be cousins, as Neanders are considered cousins. The fossil bones bedded in the spacial temporal matrix tell the story. Curiously you are complaining here about not having that specific path where above you were complaining about not seeing the "deviants" from the path. This photo basically shows the whole fossil assemblage known at the time the photo was compiled (2000) with their relative ages. There have been several additions since then.
First, reality produces variations, not gradatons. Microevolution creates variations, not smooth gradations. I say more about this in my footnote below. There is no gradation from one trilobite type to another in the fossil record, for instance, there are only populations of different types that happen to have been buried at different levels of the strata. So why should there be gradations between skulls or ear bones rather than just many different variations? Curiously you appear to be confusing (conflating) the variations that exist within a breeding population with the long term trends that occur over generations. You also appear to be expecting to see something that is not predicted by evolution: populations buried in different geological (temporal/spacial matrix) strata would be expected to be different. BUT they would also be expected to have some shared characteristics, and those characteristics would be expected to show a continued trend of derived traits built on previous derived traits. This is what evolution predicts, and this is what we see every time we look at a time-line of fossils. We see it with trilobites, we see it with therapsids, we see it with Pelycodus, and we see it with hominids. Again, all we need to do is arrange the fossils by spacial and temporal relationships and the evolutionary trends appear.
Second, microevolution does not need the millions of years supposedly objectively dated between fossil skulls and reptile-to-mammal ear bones. As the Pod Mrcaru example shows, thirty years is plenty when you have an isolated small population, and nature should create such isolated populations frequently enough to be the explanation for the different breeds of fossils too. Agreed it can happen fast, but that does not mean that all evolution has occurred rapidly. The problem you have is not with the evolution of the different populations represented by the fossils, but with their time and location sequencing: why does every new species occurs near the location of a recent ancestral species?
Dates. Sure seems open-and-shut when you've got each skull dated, each example of reptilian or mammalian ear bones dated, and they all so nicely follow one from another just as evolution says they should. It's the dating of the specimens that seals the deal, right, so unless one wants to accuse all researchers in the area of outright fraud the dates have to be accepted don't they? How can one answer that? One either accepts what the evidence shows, or they show how those dates are erroneous. That is how science is done. This is the challenge of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: how do you explain the correlations and the consilience of the dating systems if they are "prone to error" as many creationists claim. Here's a question for you Faith: how come we can recover DNA from skeletons that are older than written history, from fossils that date to 30,000 years ago, but cannot recover DNA from fossils that date to over 100 million years ... if the earth is really young? Why do each of the radioactive dating techniques all have a specific limit to how far back they can be used based solely on their half-life, why is there a different horizon for each method, ... if the earth is young? Enough for now. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : 63?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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Here is my Message 151 that Faith needed to repost here. That last sentence had gotten cut off, so I completed it, which is the only change I've made to this post:
quote: Edited by dwise1, : added msg ID and quote tags
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Faith, you saved me some effort; you can hide your post by using [hide](hidden text)[/hide]
Arranged by time the evolutionary trends appear. I've been looking for better, more complete graphics, but it seems there are not that many out there that have the newest information. So far the best collection I have seen is at wikipedia:
quote: I am not going to reproduce that table, just follow the last link and you can see the documentation of location and date for the different Homo species (ie more than the graphic above). And then they show this:
Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Anyway, I find myself having the same sorts of questions I had about Dr. A's skulls. The supposed evolutionary sequence is just too pat, too "just so" to be realistic. You're complaining that the evidence is too good?
Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? Well, I could show you lots of fossils of things that don't have any surviving descendants. Look, here's one.
It's called a Spinosaurus, it's a complete dead end. No mammals, no birds, and indeed nothing at all now living is descended from it. Happy now?
Doesn't evolution ever make mistakes? But of course you'll say it does, all the time, and yet this sort of perfect sequence is what you give for evidence. That, Faith, is because if I want to demonstrate a reptile-to-mammal transition or ape-to-human transition, I'm not going to throw in the Spinosaurus, which is not part of that transition and so does not demonstrate it.
How did we get this neat progression of skulls from small cranial capacity to large human cranial capacity with such plausible morphological gradations from one to another of the skulls? Because humans evolved from apes.
How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? Because mammals evolved from reptiles.
Dates. Sure seems open-and-shut when you've got each skull dated, each example of reptilian or mammalian ear bones dated, and they all so nicely follow one from another just as evolution says they should. It's the dating of the specimens that seals the deal, right, so unless one wants to accuse all researchers in the area of outright fraud the dates have to be accepted don't they? How can one answer that? First, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but there is certainly something odd about how this all fits together that ought not to be taken at face value. Again, you're complaining that the evidence is too good. You could say that of pretty much anything that's true. "You tell me trees exist, and then you claim to 'prove' it by showing me thousands of trees. Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that there's so many of them? That I can not just see them, but actually touch them? Doesn't it all seem a bit too convenient?" So, what should it look like if there were trees? And what would it look like if evolutionists were right? Wouldn't there be intermediate forms --- such as we find? Wouldn't the dates roughly show the more basal forms to be earlier --- like they do? --- Your crap about genetics has been exposed and ridiculed on other threads. If you want to do this again, bump one of those threads, don't do it here. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024