|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: It's called a Spinosaurus, btw, your spinosaurus reconstruction is wrong. some of the missing portions (like the legs) were reconstructed from closely related dinosaurs. apparently, it should look a bit more like this:
crazy, right?
Because mammals evolved from reptiles. well, they didn't. there's no clear clade we can associate with "reptile" except maybe sauropsids, and the ancestors of mammals actually diverge lower than sauropsids. mammals evolved from synapsids, which aren't exactly reptiles. they're kind of reptile-like amniotes. some people use "reptile" as a kind of evolutionary grade, because the things we call "reptiles" are a paraphyletic grouping, including a bunch of things but not their common ancestor, and excluding certain crown groups like mammals and birds. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, yes, I'm using "reptile" as a grade, to mean "the sort of thing where, if you saw one, you'd say "oh look, a reptile"."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
From Homo naledi thread.
Faith writes: ... 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 ...
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. I can understand how convincing this seems to be, with all the apparent gradations that would get from the reptilian to the mammalian jaw bones, with a therapsid type in between that appears to be a perfect transitional between the two, but it has to be pointed out that the whole scenario is assumed for starters. Evolution from one to the other is assumed, so the task is clearly laid out as speculating about how the one set of bones changed into the other type of bones. It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. These bones had to shift, we had to get a different arrangement here, then thus and so had to occur, and because there is enough similarity between them to make the changes plausible -- if you believe one evolved from the other -- it makes a very neat progression from the one to the other. It would help to have drawings or photos of the different sets of bones to illustrate the sequence of changes being discussed so one could judge just how much change is being talked about, just how neat the sequence would have been had it occurred in reality. I did look up some images of therapsids just to know what that creature is supposed to have looked like. The same observations and questions apply that I've already brought up. I would guess that microevolution occurred between some of the specimens but without knowing exactly what they looked like, how many there are, what positions they were in relative to each other in their burial places, what distances etc., there isn't anything to go on, and it would involve too much time anyway. But most likely two of the same type of reptile with small differences between them would be genetically related, but whether both evolved from an original population or one evolved from the other, and in this case whether the one higher in the strata evolved from the lower or vice versa, would be impossible to know. The article mentions an "earlier" form of therapsid, which must mean that it was found in a lower position than other forms, as having a more reptilian arrangement of bones, while a later specimen has a different, more mammalian arrangement. This is again very plausible sounding but only if you are assuming evolution from one to the other to begin with. Otherwise I would understand them as simply different variations or breeds of the same creature, with no way of knowing which came first or how closely they might be genetically related. Just how reptilian or mammalian the arrangements are must be a highly subjective judgment. Because one type is lower you'd be expecting it to be more reptilian, and the higher to be more mammalian. There probably are enough morphological reasons to make the judgment based on the assumption of evolution, but what if they are simply variations as I would guess they are? Because you believe in evolution you are looking for gradations between morphologies. Apparently this particular set of fossils is very encouraging for that kind of speculation, apparently more so than other sets of fossils since it is being studied as a particularly fine example of a transitional series. One question I'd have is whether there is enough similar transitional morphology between other parts of the creatures to parallel the supposed transition of these sets of bones in the jaw area. Perhaps if I read the rest of the article something would be said about that? But I have more than enough to think about just from what you posted here. As I was arguing before, genetics doesn't normally produce gradations. Microevolution produces phenotypic variations, even between parent and child, but in an isolated population complete changes from the parent population, not just a gradual change. Darwin bred some of his pigeons to exaggerate a particular chosen feature, and in that case you'd see gradations of the qualities of that feature from generation to generation. But nature doesn't very often do it that way. You isolate a few pairs of lizards on an island and they develop a very large head and a new digestive system in thirty years. These features didn't exist at all in the parent population, they arose from the new gene frequencies in the few individuals that were put on the island, that were different from the gene frequencies of the original population. Darwin's finches had different kinds of beaks that were adapted to different kinds of foods. Not gradations of change in one kind of beak. That's because the genome is designed to produce new variations. So your different kinds of bone arrangements in the fossils being discussed would best be understood as merely genetic variations. Assembling them in a graded series is a mental exercise that probably doesn't reflect the reality at all. Yes I know there are the dates. What can I say, the dates don't make any sense. Both because of how genetics works, as I've been saying, and because the changes that occur with microevolution can occur very rapidly, in a matter of years, maybe hundreds but that seems unlikely. In any case millions is out of the question. (Also, note that I highlighted the word "advanced" in the discussion because it's one of those words that sneaks into evolutionary descriptions that implies what evolutionists claim isn't the case, the implication that one species is higher or more evolved than another.) Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I can understand how convincing this seems to be, with all the apparent gradations that would get from the reptilian to the mammalian jaw bones, with a therapsid type in between that appears to be a perfect transitional between the two, but it has to be pointed out that the whole scenario is assumed for starters. Evolution from one to the other is assumed, so the task is clearly laid out as speculating about how the one set of bones changed into the other type of bones. It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. Well, you're exhibiting a classic creationist confusion between the evidence for evolution and evolutionary interpretation. To test evolution, we say: if it's right, we should be able to find things which look like an evolutionary pathway between A and B, in that they will have intermediate forms. When we've been convinced by this and other evidence that evolution happened, then we can look back at the same fossils and say: A did evolve into B, and these are transitional species. The first is a successful prediction, the second is interpretation. The fossil evidence for evolution is, of course, the successful prediction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Assembling them in a graded series is a mental exercise that probably doesn't reflect the reality at all. The funny thing is that we can group organisms together in a nested hierarchy based on morphological characters. Then we can examine genetic characters and group the organisms in a nested hierarchy based on genetic differences and the two groupings largely agree. Now, I know what you are thinking... "Organisms that are similar morphologically should be similar genetically." Sure, but these trees are often made from "junk DNA" such as simple sequence repeats, introns, intergenic spacers and internal transcribed spacers. Why would these "throw-away" pieces of DNA have changed over time in pretty much the same way the morphological characters have changed? Why do we get very, very similar nested groupings from morphological data as we do from "junk DNA" data? Common descent is simply the BEST explanation (not the only explanation, simply the one that makes the most sense).
Both because of how genetics works But, you don't really understand how genetics work. You have your own made up version of it based on limited examples.
because the changes that occur with microevolution can occur very rapidly Yes, changes can happen rapidly, but they don't have to. In fact, deniers of evolution lament that we don't witness evolution on a daily basis in the real world. If what you say is the rule rather then the exception, every time we go out to study evolution we should witness a "microevolutionary" event. We don't.
In any case millions is out of the question. Interesting premise to start with. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I lost my first reply so I'll try again.
... It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. These bones had to shift, we had to get a different arrangement here, then thus and so had to occur, ... To add to what Dr A said, this is not an assumption, it is a prediction: IF B evolved from A, THEN there should be intermediate stages in the fossil record.
... and because there is enough similarity between them to make the changes plausible -- if you believe one evolved from the other -- it makes a very neat progression from the one to the other. ... That the fossil record does provide intermediates between A and B that are within the spacial\temporal matrix, just as the theory predicted, is validation of the theory. Remember that the theory is basically that microevolution over generations, causing anagenesis and cladogenesis, is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
... It would help to have drawings or photos of the different sets of bones to illustrate the sequence of changes being discussed so one could judge just how much change is being talked about, just how neat the sequence would have been had it occurred in reality. I did look up some images of therapsids just to know what that creature is supposed to have looked like. Indeed, and I used to have a link to a website that provided details on each one with interactive links up and down and sideways. You could go from Synopsidae to Mammalia and back. Unfortunately it is down for reconstruction: Palaeos: Life Through Deep TimeWayback Machine* We can, however look at wikipedia: Therapsid - Wikipedia
quote: See the last link for a chart of both the path from Synapsida to Mammalia. But it doesn't talk about the evolution of the ear, for that we need: Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia
quote: So there is also an evolutionary branch with the same ear (and other earlier evolved traits of mammals) that does not lead to mammals (another one of your "deviant" paths). And it looks like there were several intermediate species with double jaws as well as intermediate species where the bone size and shape lead up to the double jaw and then move from the double jaw to the single mammalian jaw and inner ear pattern seen in all mammals today. The fossils fit the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
To test evolution, we say: if it's right, we should be able to find things which look like an evolutionary pathway between A and B, in that they will have intermediate forms. When we've been convinced by this and other evidence that evolution happened, then we can look back at the same fossils and say: A did evolve into B, and these are transitional species. The first is a successful prediction, the second is interpretation. The fossil evidence for evolution is, of course, the successful prediction. The additional proof is DNA. Upon it's discovery and when we started genome mapping, scientists began aligning the findings against our current taxonomy table. The results matched the predictions. i.e. species that diverged had common DNA traits that could be linked back to specific common ancestors. And species that were deemed 'close' to each other from an evolutionary standpoint and a specific timescale (i.e. Chimps and Humans) had a high level of overlap in their respective genomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The additional proof is DNA. Upon it's discovery and when we started genome mapping, scientists began aligning the findings against our current taxonomy table. The results matched the predictions. i.e. species that diverged had common DNA traits that could be linked back to specific common ancestors. And species that were deemed 'close' to each other from an evolutionary standpoint and a specific timescale (i.e. Chimps and Humans) had a high level of overlap in their respective genomes. But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Very similar-appearing critters - say, European moles (Talpidae) and marsupial moles (Notoryctidae) are very different in their DNA. Similar finished houses, but the blueprints don't gee-haw at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses. But crocodiles and birds don't have a similar plan. And yet molecular phylogeny puts them together just as one would expect from the fossil record.
. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons. But the results of these comparisons can be predicted on the basis of common descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
To add to what Dr A said, this is not an assumption, it is a prediction: IF B evolved from A, THEN there should be intermediate stages in the fossil record. Yes, it's certainly not just an inadvertent assumption, but it does function as an untested assumption when you get into postulating how particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones. You are assuming that genetics can make this change without knowing if it can or not. Again, I don't see gradations in how genetics works, do you? At least not in the most common patterns of inheritance. As I keep saying, you get variation, not gradation, but you need gradation, small differences that accumulate over time, to fit the changes postulated from one creature to another. Yes, if B evolved from A supposedly there would be such intermediates, but you'd have to show that this is genetically possible, which I'm questioning, and besides, it's just as possible that nature has made lots of similar creatures that are nevertheless not related genetically to each other.
That the fossil record does provide intermediates between A and B that are within the spacial\temporal matrix, just as the theory predicted, is validation of the theory. Yes this is logical and I can see how it's persuasive, but the problem is that you don't have any direct actual evidence, it's all subjective judgments about similarities and differences. You can see that to get to bone arrangement B from bone arrangement A the bones would have to undergo a particular series of changes, but you have no way of showing that those changes ever occurred or are even genetically possible. Again, I don't think genetics works that way; it works by producing variations not gradations.
Remember that the theory is basically that microevolution over generations, causing anagenesis and cladogenesis, is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Sure, and again it has its plausibility as a theory, but again there is absolutely NO actual, real, hard evidence that microevolution is anything but the working out of built-in genetic possibilities within the genome of a species. I did think it would be helpful to have the illustrations I mentioned to be able to visualize what is being talked about, but now I've got so many people responding to me and you are providing so many links I'm too tired to deal with them. Maybe I'll get a second wind. The point was to see if I think the similarities warrant the speculations about possible changes between different formations, but it wouldn't change what I've said above anyway. I don't know how you have the energy, RAZD. You put up complex post after post. It wears me out. I'll have to come back later if I can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Faith writes: But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons. The only deception here is implying that DNA is similar to human constructed house plans. Faith, I know you have been told about Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) in past discussions. Comparisons of these viral elements in the genome can indeed show which species are most closely related and at what level in the descent tree their common ancestors occupy. Wikipedia has a good discussion at: Endogenous retrovirus They also list 42 references.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Very similar-appearing critters - say, European moles (Talpidae) and marsupial moles (Notoryctidae) are very different in their DNA. Similar finished houses, but the blueprints don't gee-haw at all. Nature is likely to have all sorts of anomalies that no particular analogy is going to cover, but make up your minds here: I was responding to the statement that the morphological tree is neatly paralleled by the genetic tree. Perhaps not so neatly then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, it's certainly not just an inadvertent assumption, but it does function as an untested assumption when you get into postulating how particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones. Please read my post again, the one explaining the difference between prediction and interpretation. --- As for this stuff about genetics, we've seen your theory of genetics, and pointed out how it's contradicted by (a) the theory of genetics as used by geneticists (b) reality. So if your best argument that the fossil record doesn't show evolution is that your own private version of genetics says that it can't, then that would be just one more reason to think that the Faith Theory of Genetics is inferior to the theory adhered to by geneticists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are bringing up a different argument and I'm still involved in the argument on the table. You'd have to make your case for endogenous retroviruses in a lot of detail for me to see the point anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024