Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 2887 (769508)
09-21-2015 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2015 7:03 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
You are going to have to stop talking in riddles and innuendoes and actually say something substantive if you want me to understand you. But perhaps you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 7:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 7:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 137 of 2887 (769510)
09-21-2015 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-21-2015 9:40 AM


Shared derived traits key to showing evolution
(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.)
Good call, I agree with you that this is a poor choice of words.
A better choice is to use the term "derived" which is then compared to "primitive" (also a poor choice imho for the same reason) or "ancestral" -- where derived traits are ones that have changed - evolved - from shared ancestral traits.
Cladistics - Wikipedia
quote:
Cladistics (from Greek κλάδος, klados, i.e. "branch")[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics that can be traced to a group's most recent common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. Therefore, members of a group are assumed to share a common history and are considered to be closely related.[2][3][4][5]
Introduction to Cladistics
[qs]The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.[/quote]
Note that these derived traits are also ancestral, just recent ancestral, and it is the most recent shared derived traits that show the most recent evolutionary history, while the most ancient shared derived traits show the more ancient evolutionary history.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 2887 (769511)
09-21-2015 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
09-21-2015 7:07 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
You are going to have to stop talking in riddles and innuendoes and actually say something substantive if you want me to understand you.
I am not talking in riddles and innuendos. What is it that you don't understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 7:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 139 of 2887 (769518)
09-21-2015 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:53 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
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.
Perhaps to help you visualize the genetic possibilities we need to look at how much variation a breeding population can have. Let me suggest that the known variation in dog traits is a fairly good example of the range of change available, and we can use the difference from wolf to a variety in dogs as a known amount of variation that is possible within a species -- we know that much is possible within a reasonably short length of time:
Curiously, I would say that this is strong evidence that "particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones" from the differences in size and the differences in shape, especially the shapes of the skulls and mandibles.
As you noted previously, evolution can occur rapidly - especially when there is strong selection pressure (artificial pressure in the case of dog varieties), and the time span for dog evolution is a minuscule fraction of the time needed in the therapsid evolution.
... and besides, it's just as possible that nature has made lots of similar creatures that are nevertheless not related genetically to each other.
And magically all just happen to be put in the appropriate location and time stratum to appear to be evolution when it is really just a joke by the cosmic jester ...
This is why the spatial\temporal matrix is a necessary part of the evidence.
... 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 ...
Except for those nasty intermediate fossils that actually dare show just the kind of intermediate forms of the bones expected ...
... or are even genetically possible. Again, I don't think genetics works that way; ...
Dogs.
... it works by producing variations not gradations.
One generations variations are the next generations gradations.
The population in generation A has a set of variations, of them half get reproduce in generation B along with new variations. Of the variations in population B, half get reproduce in generation C along with new variations. You now have gradations.
This is why macroevolution is the continued effect of microevolution over several generations.
Again, we can look at Pelycodus:
quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.
You can see variation within each breeding population (horizontal bars), and you can see that the overall picture trends from smaller to larger in gradations, generation after generation.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-22-2015 1:46 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 140 of 2887 (769520)
09-21-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
09-21-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
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.
Taxonomists put the marsupial mole together with the marsupials. But what do you do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 7:01 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by herebedragons, posted 09-21-2015 9:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 141 of 2887 (769524)
09-21-2015 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:28 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses.
As I alluded to in my previous post, we don't use the gene for hair color to build a phylogeny of hair color evolution and then say they match. We use genes that have little to do with the morphological characteristics we are studying. Like ITS (internal transcribed spacers), RNA polymerase II subunit RPB1, SSR markers (simple sequence repeats), Cytochome C (a part of the electron transport chain), Elongation factor-alpha, etc... Why do these markers, that have little to do with hair color, or bone structure, or brain cavity size, group into nested hierarchies that match so well with the nested hierarchies based on morphological data?
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 142 of 2887 (769525)
09-21-2015 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2015 8:37 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Taxonomists put the marsupial mole together with the marsupials. But what do you do?
That would be the mole kind.
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 8:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 2887 (769539)
09-22-2015 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by RAZD
09-21-2015 8:05 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
I don't know why you would use dogs, RAZD, since I have used them so many times in my argument about how evolution depletes genetic diversity. Sure, the species as a whole has or had lots of genetic diversity to begin with, that's how there could be so many breeds of dogs. Sure there was a great range of change available in the original population, and there may still be a fair amount of change still available in some populations of dogs.
Curiously, I would say that this is strong evidence that "particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones" from the differences in size and the differences in shape, especially the shapes of the skulls and mandibles.
But with dog breeds you are not talking about gradation but variation. You aren't getting degrees of change from one type to another, you get new breeds based on new gene frequencies due to the elimination of competing alleles for different forms of the same trait. Also, in the fossils aren't you talking about a change that seems to occur within the same race or breed, rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds. That is, the different dogs have differences in every part of their anatomy from each other. I'm not sure why this would be so or even quite what I'm trying to say, but the example of the dogs just doesn't seem to say anything about the fossil differences.
As you noted previously, evolution can occur rapidly - especially when there is strong selection pressure (artificial pressure in the case of dog varieties), and the time span for dog evolution is a minuscule fraction of the time needed in the therapsid evolution.
I doubt it. I would suppose the therapsids evolved whatever differences there are among them within decades or hundreds of years at most of normal microevolution just as the reptiles would have evolved their breeds and the mammals theirs. The millions of years is ridiculous, and again, no living things would have survived that many years anyway. How many generations would occur over multiple millions of years? If there HAD been that many generations there would have been hundreds or thousands more variations within each species because variation is just what happens genetically. The processes would be much slower than for artificial selection of course, but still not take anywhere near millions of years. And there aren't any precursors to these creatures in lower strata either? They all just bloomed within their own time and we find them fully formed in their sedimentary burial grounds? There's SO much that's wrong with evolution it's remarkable that you all keep going on it. But of course the problem is that it IS all a mental exercise, none of it can be tested in actual reality. The seeming gradations remain seeming gradations, the evolutionary paths between different forms is purely imagined. And they don't look anything like the known paths to different dog breeds. Sorry, got carried away.
... and besides, it's just as possible that nature has made lots of similar creatures that are nevertheless not related genetically to each other.
And magically all just happen to be put in the appropriate location and time stratum to appear to be evolution when it is really just a joke by the cosmic jester ...
It's no crazier than what you guys are actually claiming, all based on nothing but your wonderful human imaginations. You think you see gradations in the strata from one kind of animal to another, and it's plausible, it's superficially convincing, but everything about it is so artificial and so unprovable, so purely imagined and not evidenced, even the fact that each layer or time period has so many of one kind of creature that doesn't exist at all in lower levels, and so few or none of others that already supposedly abundantly populated the earth in supposedly earlier times. Yes there's a seeming gradation up the levels, but it's an invention of your minds.
Never mind. I don't want to be insulting. I get frustrated with these discussions, the just-so stories.
This is why the spatial\temporal matrix is a necessary part of the evidence.
... 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 ...
Except for those nasty intermediate fossils that actually dare show just the kind of intermediate forms of the bones expected ...
JUST the kind, just the very kind? I can see the seductiveness of the apparent gradations, but I have to suspect that some of it is purely imagined and pasted on what isn't really all that perfect a fit with the theory. Apparently this particular transitional sequence from reptile to mammal is unusually convincing with the apparent gradation of forms, more so than most of the other fossils. And again, microevolution doesn't make gradations, it makes variations.
... or are even genetically possible. Again, I don't think genetics works that way; ...
Dogs.
... it works by producing variations not gradations.
One generations variations are the next generations gradations.
That's a very clever answer.
The population in generation A has a set of variations, of them half get reproduce in generation B along with new variations. Of the variations in population B, half get reproduce in generation C along with new variations. You now have gradations.
Where are you getting this "half" being reproduced idea and how does this somehow end up in gradations? Sorry you totally lost me.
This is why macroevolution is the continued effect of microevolution over several generations
Sigh. Well of course I still have my argument that series of microevolving populations will eventually run out of genetic diversity which is what prevents macroevolution from ever occurring, but I didn't want to go back to that here. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 09-22-2015 3:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2015 9:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 3:47 PM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 144 of 2887 (769542)
09-22-2015 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
09-22-2015 1:46 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
With all due respect ... and with far more respect than is due you ... , it is impossible for anybody to have any idea what you are talking about.
For years here, you have a proven history of abandoning accepted terminology and of insisting upon your own highly unorthodox redefinitions of any and all terms. Your arbitrary redefinitions have rendered virtually all meaningful communication with you impossible.
Don't complain to us. You are the one who has poisoned your own well. Too bad, too. You sound almost coherent here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-22-2015 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 145 of 2887 (769553)
09-22-2015 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
09-22-2015 1:46 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
I don't know why you would use dogs, RAZD, since I have used them so many times in my argument about how evolution depletes genetic diversity. Sure, the species as a whole has or had lots of genetic diversity to begin with, that's how there could be so many breeds of dogs. Sure there was a great range of change available in the original population, and there may still be a fair amount of change still available in some populations of dogs.
Curiously I have used dogs many times in my arguments about the range of variation possible in a breeding population to show that moving from one fossil to another in a sequence is no more of a change than what is seen in dogs.
Here, however, we were discussing the difference between variation within a breeding population and gradations between fossils of different age strata, and here dogs are helpful as well:
quote:
Dog Breeds
Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans, bred from a known foundation stock. The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans, with little or no selective breeding by humans.[1] Such breeds are undocumented, and are identified by their appearance and often by a style of working.
We have a good database of development of different breeds by documentation of the steps, the gradations, in their development, and this can be tested by, or used to test, the genetic clade derivations:
quote:
Ancient dog breeds
In 2004, a study looked at the microsatellites of 414 purebred dogs representing 85 breeds. The study found that dog breeds were so genetically distinct that 99% of the dogs could be correctly assigned to their breed based on their genotype. The study identified 9 breeds could be represented on the branches of a phylogenetic tree that grouped together with strong statistical support and could be separated from the other breeds in the study that had a modern European origin. These 9 breeds were once referred to as "ancient dog breeds" because historically it was believed that they had origins dating back over 500 years. The study also found that the Pharaoh Hound and Ibizan Hound were not as old as believed but had been recreated from combinations of other breeds, and that the Norwegian Elkhound grouped with the other European dogs despite reports of direct Scandinavian origins dating back 5,000 years.[20] In 2012, another DNA analysis concluded that although these breeds had not been intermingled with other breeds due to their geographic isolation, that did not make them ancient dog breeds.[21]
Looking to the right there is a cladogram of dog breeds, one that looks amazingly like the ones that scientists develop for fossils. You can see several branches that show intermediate stages\steps\gradations in the development of closely related breeds, with older common ancestors to less related breeds.
This should not be a surprise because we know that some breeds were developed from other breeds rather than directly from wolf stock.
... rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds. That is, the different dogs have differences in every part of their anatomy from each other. ...
Except that we know that there are intermediate stages\steps\gradations ... and this would hold true for other domesticated animals as well (cats, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc etc etc) as well as it does for dogs. All the different domesticated dog breeds were not bred independently from original stock, but rather developed from previously existing varieties. From gradations between them and the original stock.
As a result there is a history of shared derived traits, with near relatives having more shared derived traits and distant relatives have fewer shared derived traits.
... Also, in the fossils aren't you talking about a change that seems to occur within the same race or breed, rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds ...
Well actually it is kind of both and neither. Remember that there is not a claimed direct lineage of fossils, but rather that the intermediate fossils are in the same family\genus as the organisms that developed into later forms. This family\genus could show the same variations around a general theme that dogs show (altho unlikely it would be that varied due to natural selection, as many dog breeds would not likely survive long in the wild). Fossils found with more shared derived traits are thus more likely to be close to the direct lineage than ones with fewer shared derived traits.
But also these changes are not "within the same race or breed" but in the lineage as that species evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, a new genus, a new family, which then evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, genus, family, and so on.
For the therapsid evolution we are talking changing from genus to new genus to newer genus and even from family to new family to newer family ... ie - by the process that is called "macroevolution" by scientists -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:
  1. The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
  2. The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.
Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes called phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation.
If you ignore the side branches caused by cladogenesis (your 'deviants') you are left with a direct lineage that looks like continual anagenesis over many generations.
It's no crazier than what you guys are actually claiming, all based on nothing but your wonderful human imaginations. ...
Except that we have the evidence that supports it, the fossils bedded in the spacial temporal matrix, the evidence of the same processes occurring in real time with living species, and genetic DNA evidence.
Making up arbitrary creation of new species does not explain the spacial\temporal matrix with having to add more magic.
... You think you see gradations in the strata from one kind of animal to another, and it's plausible, it's superficially convincing, but everything about it is so artificial and so unprovable, so purely imagined and not evidenced, even the fact that each layer or time period has so many of one kind of creature that doesn't exist at all in lower levels, and so few or none of others that already supposedly abundantly populated the earth in supposedly earlier times. Yes there's a seeming gradation up the levels, but it's an invention of your minds.
But it is evidenced: the fossils bedded in the spacial\temporal matrix are one set of evidence, seeing the same process work in real time with living species is another set of evidence, and the shared derived traits in the DNA is another set of evidence and they all point in the same direction.
Never mind. I don't want to be insulting. I get frustrated with these discussions, the just-so stories.
May I suggest that you get frustrated (and angry) because the evidence does not fit your "just-so stories" as neatly as it fits evolution?
JUST the kind, just the very kind? I can see the seductiveness of the apparent gradations, but I have to suspect that some of it is purely imagined and pasted on what isn't really all that perfect a fit with the theory. ...
Indeed, in order for the dentary bone to evolve from a pair of small dentary bones in the reptile jaw to a single large dentary bone in the mammal jaw it needs to grow in size over time and it needs to fuse at the chin. Both are changes found in the intermediate fossils.
For the other bones to evolve from large bones in the jaw to small bones in the inner ear, they need to shrink in size and become detached from the rest of the jaw. Both changes are found in the intermediate fossils.
In order for the jaw to transition from a single joint and a mouthful of jaw bones to a single joint with just a single jaw bone it needs to go through an intermediate stage with both joints (a double jointed jaw), which again is found in several intermediate fossils. With different gradations of jaw bone sizes between the joints.
Apparently this particular transitional sequence from reptile to mammal is unusually convincing with the apparent gradation of forms, more so than most of the other fossils. ...
Indeed.
... And again, microevolution doesn't make gradations, it makes variations.
Pelycodus.
Repeating a worn out invalidated argument does not make it any more valid than before.
That's a very clever answer.
Possibly because it is true. Variations are the differences within a breeding population generation, while gradations are the differences between generations of a breeding population.
Where are you getting this "half" being reproduced idea and how does this somehow end up in gradations? Sorry you totally lost me.
Whether it is half or 10%, the point is that not all the variations within a breeding population get reproduce in the following generation, which add their own new variations to the mix, but not all of their variations get reproduced in the next generation, which adds their own new variations ... and you end up with gradations from generation to generation.
Sigh. Well of course I still have my argument that series of microevolving populations will eventually run out of genetic diversity which is what prevents macroevolution from ever occurring, but I didn't want to go back to that here. Oh well.
Good, because repeating a worn out invalidated argument does not make it any more valid than before.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-22-2015 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 6:03 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 6:06 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 8:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 146 of 2887 (769609)
09-23-2015 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
09-22-2015 9:51 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
dup
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2015 9:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 2887 (769610)
09-23-2015 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
09-22-2015 9:51 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
I don't know why you would use dogs, RAZD, since I have used them so many times in my argument about how evolution depletes genetic diversity. Sure, the species as a whole has or had lots of genetic diversity to begin with, that's how there could be so many breeds of dogs. Sure there was a great range of change available in the original population, and there may still be a fair amount of change still available in some populations of dogs.
Curiously I have used dogs many times in my arguments about the range of variation possible in a breeding population to show that moving from one fossil to another in a sequence is no more of a change than what is seen in dogs.
If that's all you're saying we have no argument. The problem comes in when you assume that microevolution continues beyond the species into different species. And "assumes" is the right word, since with living dogs we see what happens genetically within the species, but the claim that you can get beyond dogs to anything else is pure assumption based on the theory. And I do still hold on to my argument that evolution loses genetic diversity which brings evolution to a halt within the species.
Here, however, we were discussing the difference between variation within a breeding population and gradations between fossils of different age strata, and here dogs are helpful as well:
quote:
Dog Breeds
Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans, bred from a known foundation stock. The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans, with little or no selective breeding by humans.[1] Such breeds are undocumented, and are identified by their appearance and often by a style of working.
We have a good database of development of different breeds by documentation of the steps, the gradations, in their development, and this can be tested by, or used to test, the genetic clade derivations:
quote:
Ancient dog breeds
In 2004, a study looked at the microsatellites of 414 purebred dogs representing 85 breeds. The study found that dog breeds were so genetically distinct that 99% of the dogs could be correctly assigned to their breed based on their genotype. The study identified 9 breeds could be represented on the branches of a phylogenetic tree that grouped together with strong statistical support and could be separated from the other breeds in the study that had a modern European origin. These 9 breeds were once referred to as "ancient dog breeds" because historically it was believed that they had origins dating back over 500 years. The study also found that the Pharaoh Hound and Ibizan Hound were not as old as believed but had been recreated from combinations of other breeds, and that the Norwegian Elkhound grouped with the other European dogs despite reports of direct Scandinavian origins dating back 5,000 years.[20] In 2012, another DNA analysis concluded that although these breeds had not been intermingled with other breeds due to their geographic isolation, that did not make them ancient dog breeds.[21]
There's nothing surprising in that except the fact that some breeds are identifiable by their genotype, which is interesting. On the introduction to genetics thread a few years ago I think they said you can't identify a breed or race by genotype, but perhaps things have changed since then.
Of course I would expect purebreds to have many fixed loci in their genotype but nothing was said about that. All breeds would have reduced genetic diversity, however, from the original population, and from whatever breed they descended from, and breeds that were formed through a series of selection processes should show lots of fixed loci/ homozygosity for their traits. This fact means that there is very limited and in some breeds absolutely no genetic diversity for further evolution, which kills the claim that dogs could be a model for the evolution of a new arrangement of bones in the reptiles that supposedly turned them into therapsids, and the therapsids further moved those bones around through genetic evolution to get to mammals. It's genetically impossible. Too much has to change in the whole genome and I understand that there are some sections of the genome that don't vary at all, but are fixed, probably the parts that define the basic structure of the animal. If that doesn't change then evolution is impossible, all you can get is the variations of microevolution within the basic structure.
Looking to the right there is a cladogram of dog breeds, one that looks amazingly like the ones that scientists develop for fossils. You can see several branches that show intermediate stages\steps\gradations in the development of closely related breeds, with older common ancestors to less related breeds.
This should not be a surprise because we know that some breeds were developed from other breeds rather than directly from wolf stock.
Yes, no problem with the dog tree.
... rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds. That is, the different dogs have differences in every part of their anatomy from each other. ...
Except that we know that there are intermediate stages\steps\gradations ... and this would hold true for other domesticated animals as well (cats, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc etc etc) as well as it does for dogs. All the different domesticated dog breeds were not bred independently from original stock, but rather developed from previously existing varieties. From gradations between them and the original stock.
That is true, and I thought I acknowledged that somewhere. Under intense selection pressure you will get such gradations in the development of a breed. But the intermediates with dogs and cats involve general changes of the whole anatomy toward the final breed, and there are no gradations of the sort imagined in that fossil sequence, that move bones around from reptile to therapsid to mammal. I don't think you could point to any similar sequence in the gradations of dogs. They get progressively, say, bigger or smaller, with longer or shorter snouts and ears and legs and tails, etc., but the basic anatomy must stay the same. Rearranged bones? Well, exceptions happen but you'd have to show me one.
As a result there is a history of shared derived traits, with near relatives having more shared derived traits and distant relatives have fewer shared derived traits.
No problem.
... Also, in the fossils aren't you talking about a change that seems to occur within the same race or breed, rather than a change that is part of a collection of changes like the different dog breeds ...
Well actually it is kind of both and neither. Remember that there is not a claimed direct lineage of fossils, but rather that the intermediate fossils are in the same family\genus as the organisms that developed into later forms. This family\genus could show the same variations around a general theme that dogs show (altho unlikely it would be that varied due to natural selection, as many dog breeds would not likely survive long in the wild). Fossils found with more shared derived traits are thus more likely to be close to the direct lineage than ones with fewer shared derived traits.
But also these changes are not "within the same race or breed" but in the lineage as that species evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, a new genus, a new family, which then evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, genus, family, and so on.
But all this is sheer unproved and unprovable assumption. Granted, again, that the apparently progressive sequence is very seductive, still it's all a merely imagined sequence. AND, the reduction of genetic diversity that has to occur for new phenotypes to develop from new gene frequencies due to reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals must occur no matter what arguments are invented against it, and that prevents evolution beyond the limits of the genome. This HAS to occur, and it's well known to conservationists who have the job of rescuing creatures from such a condition where possible. (If a few salmon on their way to spawn get lost in a tributary they develop a completely new phenotype that is usually undesirable, and sometimes can't be reintroduced to the original population because they've lost the ability to interbreed with them. This is what happened with the lizards of Pod Mrcaru too. You don't get new phenotypes without reduced genetic diversity.
Fpr the tjerapsid evolution we are talking changing from genus to new genus to newer genus and even from family to new family to newer family ... ie - by the process that is called "macroevolution" by scientists -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:
  1. The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
  2. The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.
Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes called phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation.
If you ignore the side branches caused by cladogenesis (your 'deviants') you are left with a direct lineage that looks like continual anagenesis over many generations.
I see no reason to consider any of this anything other than the variants possible within the genome of a species being worked out as usual into new phenotypes, only in these cases they change the entire population instead of forming different daughter populations. Calling it macroevolution is just word magic. The whole new population, however, should be genetically less variable than the original population, meaning it should have a higher percentage of homozygosity, or at least fewer alleles per locus for the new traits that distinguish the new population from the original, but I don't suppose there's any data on that?
It's no crazier than what you guys are actually claiming, all based on nothing but your wonderful human imaginations. ...
Except that we have the evidence that supports it, the fossils bedded in the spacial temporal matrix, the evidence of the same processes occurring in real time with living species, and genetic DNA evidence.
Well, I've just questioned your claims about the same processes with living species, and the DNA evidence. Basically, it's all theory, no substance, all imagination, no reality.
Making up arbitrary creation of new species does not explain the spacial\temporal matrix with having to add more magic.
Well, I've never claimed anything about "artibrary creation of new species" so I don't know where that idea is coming from. The magic appears to be on your side, calling microevolutionary processes macroevolution when they aren't anything but the usual working out of the genetic possibilities within the genome of a species. You have no way of getting past the species and no evidence that it has ever occurred, just the renaming that supports the illusion.
... You think you see gradations in the strata from one kind of animal to another, and it's plausible, it's superficially convincing, but everything about it is so artificial and so unprovable, so purely imagined and not evidenced, even the fact that each layer or time period has so many of one kind of creature that doesn't exist at all in lower levels, and so few or none of others that already supposedly abundantly populated the earth in supposedly earlier times. Yes there's a seeming gradation up the levels, but it's an invention of your minds.
But it is evidenced:
No, it is a subjective judgment, plausible yes, but purely imaginative.
the fossils bedded in the spacial\temporal matrix are one set of evidence, seeing the same process work in real time with living species is another set of evidence,
But this does not happen at all. You are imagining it. All that occurs with dogs is new dog breeds, with their concomitant reduction in genetic diversity which limits or completely prevents further evolution.
and the shared derived traits in the DNA is another set of evidence and they all point in the same direction.
You haven't proved this at all.
Never mind. I don't want to be insulting. I get frustrated with these discussions, the just-so stories.
May I suggest that you get frustrated (and angry) because the evidence does not fit your "just-so stories" as neatly as it fits evolution?
Golly, tit for tat. No, RAZD, I SAID what frustrates me and rewording it to suit yourself isn't quite kosher. I get frustrated, as I said, that the obvious foolishness of evolution is not recognized but buried under so much pseudoscientific rationalization. The" just-so" stories are the claims that species evolve into other species, following purely imaginary pathways about how bones must have rearranged themselves from the reptile to the therapsid to the mammalian type, which can't happen genetically and certainly has not been proved to happen. It's all mental gymnastics. THAT's the "just-so" story I'm talking about, which is what this topic is about. Tit for tat and You're Another are not respectable debate tactics.
JUST the kind, just the very kind? I can see the seductiveness of the apparent gradations, but I have to suspect that some of it is purely imagined and pasted on what isn't really all that perfect a fit with the theory. ...
Indeed, in order for the dentary bone to evolve from a pair of small dentary bones in the reptile jaw to a single large dentary bone in the mammal jaw it needs to grow in size over time and it needs to fuse at the chin. Both are changes found in the intermediate fossils.
No, what are found in the fossils are the pair of small dentary bones in the reptile jaw, and the single large dentary bonew in the mammal jaw and the fused larger bone in the therapsid. They aren't changes, they are variations. There is no evidence whatever that one evolved into the other, and there is no evidence in living things that change on that order of magnitude has ever occurred. It's not genetically possible. The changes in dog breeds do not rearrange bones. Whatever bone differences there are were already there in the genome.
For the other bones to evolve from large bones in the jaw to small bones in the inner ear, they need to shrink in size and become detached from the rest of the jaw. Both changes are found in the intermediate fossils.
Then both are variations within the genome of those fossils. One did not evolve into the other. There was no "shrinking" or "detaching" there were simply two different kinds of arrangements in the genome. You have no evidence, just assumption, and it's genetically impossible for one type to evolve into another.
In order for the jaw to transition from a single joint and a mouthful of jaw bones to a single joint with just a single jaw bone it needs to go through an intermediate stage with both joints (a double jointed jaw), which again is found in several intermediate fossils.
This doesn't happen in nature. Genetics produces variations, either one type or the other or the third.
With different gradations of jaw bone sizes between the joints.
Different types, different variations, not evolution from one to the other and there is no evidence whatever in living things for this. It's pure imagination.
Apparently this particular transitional sequence from reptile to mammal is unusually convincing with the apparent gradation of forms, more so than most of the other fossils. ...
Indeed.
The point being it's rare, it's a very rare sequence that allows evolutionists to get carried away with their wonderful find, but it's nothing but an anomaly.
... And again, microevolution doesn't make gradations, it makes variations.
Pelycodus.
I answered Pelycodus.
Repeating a worn out invalidated argument does not make it any more valid than before.
I repeat it because it's true and it's relevant.
I'm too tired to continue, but there isn't much left so maybe I can come back to it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2015 9:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2015 12:08 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 148 of 2887 (769622)
09-23-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
09-23-2015 6:06 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
If that's all you're saying we have no argument. The problem comes in when you assume that microevolution continues beyond the species into different species. And "assumes" is the right word, since with living dogs we see what happens genetically within the species, but the claim that you can get beyond dogs to anything else is pure assumption based on the theory. ...
Except that we have instances, evidence, where new species have occurred that are genetically incompatible with the parent population. This is not an assumption, it is a fact.
... And I do still hold on to my argument that evolution loses genetic diversity which brings evolution to a halt within the species.
Even though it has been invalidated by evidence of new genetic diversity created by mutations.
There's nothing surprising in that except the fact that breeds are identifiable by their genotype, which is interesting. Of course I would expect purebreds to have many fixed loci in their genotype but nothing was said about that. All breeds would have reduced genetic diversity from the original breed, and from whatever breed they descended from, and breeds that were formed through a series of selection processes should show lots of fixed loci/ homozygosity for their traits. This fact means that there is very limited and in some breeds absolutely no genetic diversity for further evolution, which kills the claim that dogs could be a model for the evolution of a new arrangement of bones in the reptiles that turned them into therapsids, and the therapsids further moved those bones around through genetic evolution to get to mammals. It's genetically impossible.
I've struck through words in your argument that are based on your invalidated concept of genetic depletion. As you can see there is very little left to your argument. I will continue to do this in the rest of my reply to this post.
When it comes to dog evolution we see a large variation in relative bone sizes and these run the gamut from very small in the Chihuahua to very large in the Great Dane to very distorted in the Boxer.
When we look at the therapsid evolution\fossils we see (reference Message 126 images from wiki):
Mammalian and non-mammalian jaws.
In the mammal configuration, the
quadrate and articular bones are much
smaller and form part of the middle ear.
Note that in mammals the lower jaw
consists of only the dentary bone.
Morganucodontidae and other
transitional forms had both types
of jaw joint: dentary-squamosal
(front) and articular-quadrate (rear).
  1. a moderate sized dentary bone grows to become a very large dentary bone -- similar to the change in bone size seen in the Great Dane
  2. a moderate sized quadrate bone shrinks to become a very small quadrate bone -- similar to the change in bone size seen in the Chihuahua
  3. an articulate bone that stays the same relative size while the others are changing
  4. a "distorted" jaw shape from both these changes is not unlike the jaw of a Boxer
These are all feasible bone changes based on what we know of dogs. The double jointed jaw is also found in snakes and other animals, and once contact between the dentary and the upper jaw occurs the muscles of the jaw will use it as a pivot point.
Note that these pictures only show 3 "snap-shots" of the whole trend, there are many intermediate fossils between the non-mammalian amniote and the double jaw joint Morganucodontidae and between the double jaw joint and the early mammal.
Another point is that these changes take place of hundreds of millions of years according to the geological dates, while the dog changes have only occurred over tens of thousands of years (a drop in the bucket compared to the therapsid evolution):
quote:
Origin of the domestic dog:
The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time 27,000—40,000 years ago.[1] These dates imply that the earliest dogs arose in the time of human hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists.[2] Modern dogs are more closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe than they are to modern gray wolves,[3] with nearly all genetic commonalities with the gray wolf due to admixture [2] but several Arctic dog breeds with the Taymyr wolf of North Asia due to admixture.[1]
During the LGM, there were two types of wolf. A large, heavily-built megafaunal wolf spanned the cold north of the holarctic that specialised in preying on megafauna. Another more gracile form lived in the warmer south in refuges from the glaciation. When the planet warmed and the LGM came to an end, whole species of megafauna became extinct along with their predators, leaving the more gracile form to dominate the holarctic. This wolf we know today as the modern gray wolf, which is the dog's sister but not its ancestor - the dog shows a closer genetic relationship with the extinct megafaunal wolf.

(LGM = Last Glacial Maximum
Yes, no problem with the dog tree.
Or that it shows gradations in the evolution of some dog varieties, with intermediate varieties between them and the megafaunal wolf that is the parent stock for both dogs and grey wolves.
That is true, and I thought I acknowledged that somewhere. Under intense selection pressure you will get such gradations in the development of a breed. But the intermediates with dogs and cats involve general changes of the whole anatomy toward the final breed, and there are no gradations of the sort imagined in that fossil sequence, that move bones around from reptile to therapsid to mammal. I don't think you could point to any similar sequence in the gradations of dogs. They get progressively, say, bigger or smaller, with longer or shorter snouts and ears and legs and tails, etc., but the basic anatomy must stay the same. Rearranged bones? Well, exceptions happen but you'd have to show me one.
So you have no problem with bone size changes from non-mammalian amniote to the point just before the second jaw joint becomes established ... and you have no problem with continued bone size changes from the point just after the double jointed jaw becomes a single jointed jaw to the early mammal sizes.
The issue seems to be the change in jaw articulation. I wonder if you know how these joints operate. It is not a ball and socket joint but more of a fulcrum and lever system:
quote:
Temporomandibular joints
The temporomandibular joints are the dual articulation of the mandible with the skull. Each TMJ is classed as a "ginglymoarthrodial" joint since it is both a ginglymus (hinging joint) and an arthrodial (sliding) joint,[37] and involves the condylar process of the mandible below, and the articular fossa (or glenoid fossa) of the temporal bone above. Between these articular surfaces is the articular disc (or meniscus), which is a biconcave, transversely oval disc composed of dense fibrous connective tissue. Each TMJ is covered by a fibrous capsule. There are tight fibers connecting the mandible to the disc, and loose fibers which connect the disc to the temporal bone, meaning there are in effect 2 joint capsules, creating an upper joint space and a lower joint space, with the articular disc in between ...
So really all you need to form a joint like this is a contact point and a lever with attached muscles. A very simple system.
As a result there is a history of shared derived traits, with near relatives having more shared derived traits and distant relatives have fewer shared derived traits.
No problem.
Which again means intermediate varieties and gradations in development between ancient parent population and modern populations.
But all this is sheer unproved and unprovable assumption. Granted, again, that the apparently progressive sequence is very seductive, still it's all a merely imagined sequence. ...
As shown by the fossils. By the evidence. By the spacial\temporal matrix that connects the fossils. Why do these intermediates occur between the ends of the sequence in both time and location, why don't they show up earlier if they are separate populations, why don't the end fossils show up before the intermediates if they are separate populations.
... AND, the reduction of genetic diversity that has to occur for new phenotypes to develop from new gene frequencies due to reproductive isolation of a limited number of individuals must occur no matter what arguments are invented against it, and that prevents evolution beyond the limits of the genome. This HAS to occur, and it's well known to conservationists who have the job of rescuing creatures from such a condition where possible (If a few salmon on their way to spawn get lost in a tributary they develop a completely new phenotype that is usually undesirable, and sometimes can't be reintroduced to the original population because they've lost the ability to interbreed with them. This is what happened with the lizards of Pod Mrcaru too. You don't get new phenotypes without reduced genetic diversity.
Gosh speciation ... with parent population and reproductive incompatibility with daughter populations ... macroevolution (the way scientists use the word).
I've also struck through what is just opinion. Nature doesn't care about desirability.
I see no reason to consider any of this anything other than the variants possible within the genome of a species being worked out as usual into new phenotypes, only in these cases they change the entire population instead of forming different daughter populations. Calling it macroevolution is just word magic. The whole new population, however, should be genetically less variable than the original population, meaning it should have a higher percentage of homozygosity, or at least fewer alleles per locus for the new traits that distinguish the new population from the original, but I don't suppose there's any data on that?
Calling it macroevolution is using the word properly as it is defined by the biological sciences. It is the process as I have posted for evolution occurring over multiple generations. Disagreeing with the definition just means you are confused or want to confuse others when you misuse it. You do this a lot, and once is too many.
And no, there is no data on something that does not happen.
Well, I've just questioned your claims about the same processes with living species, and the DNA evidence. Basically, it's all theory, no substance, all imagination, no reality.
Only when you ignore the evidence or wave it away.
Well, I've never claimed anything about "artibrary creation of new species" so I don't know where that idea is coming from. ...
Your claim is that the intermediate fossils are just evidence of a separate created population, one that just happens in the right time at the right place and then disappears -- sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
Then both are variations within the genome of those fossils. One did not evolve into the other. There was no "shrinking" or "detaching" there were simply two different kinds of arrangements in the genome. You have no evidence, just assumption, and it's genetically impossible for one type to evolve into another.
See? Arbitrary created populations that just happens in the right time at the right place and then disappear.
... The magic appears to be on your side, calling microevolutionary processes macroevolution when they aren't anything but the usual working out of the genetic possibilities within the genome of a species. You have no way of getting past the species and no evidence that it has ever occurred, just the renaming that supports the illusion.
Again, using the terminology of a science the way it is defined in that science is not magic, it is rather how one communicates with others in a way that doesn't cause confusion.
No, it is a subjective judgment, plausible yes, but purely imaginative.
But this does not happen at all. You are imagining it. All that occurs with dogs is new dog breeds, with their concomitant reduction in genetic diversity which limits or completely prevents further evolution.
Denying the evidence does not make it go away.
You haven't proved this at all.
Science doesn't "prove" it reaches valid conclusions based on the evidence at hand and demonstrates their validity by testing predictions -- such as the prediction that if A evolved into B that there should be intermediate stages\steps\gradations that can be observed in intermediate fossils.
That has been done is spades over and over and over again.
Golly, tit for tat. No, RAZD, I SAID what frustrates me and rewording it to suit yourself isn't quite kosher. I get frustrated, as I said, that the obvious foolishness of evolution is not recognized but buried under so much pseudoscientific rationalization. The" just-so" stories are the claims that species evolve into other species, following purely imaginary pathways about how bones must have rearranged themselves from the reptile to the therapsid to the mammalian type, which can't happen genetically and certainly has not been proved to happen. It's all mental gymnastics. THAT's the "just-so" story I'm talking about, which is what this topic is about. Tit for tat and You're Another are not respectable debate tactics.
I was merely pointing out that a common result of cognitive dissonance is frustration and anger because reality doesn't fit your world-view.
This doesn't happen in nature. Genetics produces variations, either one type or the other or the third.
Different types, different variations, not evolution from one to the other and there is no evidence whatever in living things for this. It's pure imagination.
And the next generations produce new variations because mutations. Ignoring mutations does not make them disappear.
The point being it's rare, it's a very rare sequence that allows evolutionists to get carried away with their wonderful find, but it's nothing but an anomaly.
Except that the whole fossil/spacial/temporal matrix shows this pattern from the dawn of life to the present day. Every fossil ever found fits the pattern, every DNA sequence ever made fits the pattern. I don't call that rare, I call that pervasive.
I answered Pelycodus.
And ignored the gradations over time. Again, denial does not make the evidence go away.
I repeat it because it's true and it's relevant.
Only to you Faith. As you can see, once I have removed your baseless invalid arguments there is not much left.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 6:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:20 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 2887 (769637)
09-23-2015 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
09-22-2015 1:46 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
I would suppose the therapsids evolved whatever differences there are among them within decades or hundreds of years at most of normal microevolution ...
You know the term "therapsids" includes all the mammals, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-22-2015 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 4:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 2887 (769638)
09-23-2015 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 3:47 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
No, I didn't know how they were classified. I thought it was an intermediate form unto itself. But the one being discussed is regarded as a "primitive" mammal, and in any case it is of course a creature unto itself however it's classified. It has its own bone formation that just happens to look to evolutionists like it's transitional between reptiles and more mammal-like mammals, which inspired all that imaginative moving around of bones to get from one to the other formation as if it had actually happened, all without any evidence whatever, just the fact that they subjectively seem to form a sequence.. Whatever the taxonomic classification, I'm objecting to the idea that the bones could evolve in that fashion, because genetics doesn't do that sort of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 3:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by herebedragons, posted 09-23-2015 5:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 8:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024