|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Thank you for finally posting that after I don't know how many hints and veiled threats about something I supposedly wrote that to you means I should never say a word about any of this. Yes, I've never claimed more than a rudimentary understanding, but of course I claim to understand enough to make the arguments I make. And this is awfully, you know, Ad Hominem of you ... Yeah, a bit. Look, this thread was set up --- by me --- to talk about the fossil evidence for evolution. Then you butt in to say that no matter what the fossils look like, they can't be evidence for evolution, because the Faith Theory Of Genetics says that evolution can't happen. Only you don't call it that. You say "genetics" says that evolution can't happen. At that point, you are arguing from authority, and I am perfectly entitled to point out that you are not an authority. And then I might ask you to look again at the fossils.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
But, once again, that's just what species means. You keep making this point to Faith over and over again, that this is what species means, this is how it's defined, but this seems somewhat unfair, since almost no working biologist actually defines species this way. And I'm not talking about asexual species - few mammal species, as we usually consider them, are genetically incompatible with their nearest neighbours. And many of them do interbreed in the wild - consistently and regularly. To take one example, different baboon species often hybridise at their margins. Now, you could take a lumping view and say that you don't accept six (or seven, or eight etc.) species of baboon, and consider the hybridising populations con-specific. But then you'd need to lump all baboon species into one, since all are interfertile. And you couldn't stop there either, since baboons often hybridise in the wild with geladas as well; and possibly mangabeys. The kipunji has been argued to be derived from a hybrid mangabey-baboon population. So let's stop insisting on a fruitless argument that this is what species means when we don't really mean, and it doesn't actually. If you both agree that a daughter population can be genetically incompatible with its parent, then what's the disagreement?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Genetics makes dogs that are all structurally and behaviorally dogs even if they differ enormously in size and overall appearance. None of the breeds has structural differences from the others. The bones all fit together the same way. And you've said nothing to prove that rearranging bones as required by the theory of transitional fossils being talked about here is genetically possible. Nada. If you believe the bolded part - you need to look at more dogs. The structural variation in dogs is enormous - an Irish wolfhound is not just a really big chihuahua - they're clearly different shapes. I found a nice collection of photos here on a blog about how to draw animals:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined. But look, it works the other way round. If we just think about genetics, then there is certainly a chain of mutations that would get from a monkey to a man. Or from a hippopotamus to a butterfly. If we just look at genetics, without natural selection, all things are possible. But the intermediate forms show that being intermediate is possible, practically. And that it looks exactly like it happens. We have the fossils. We win. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... There has been only that evidence: RAZD's claim that dog breeds illustrate the genetic situation with transitional fossils. ... Which it does, because it illustrates that the bones can change sizes dramatically and that the relative positions can change significantly. Now here is another set of drawings of the transition from non-mammalian amniote to early mammal:
quote: So to be very very clear, these stages involve just the kind of bone size changes seen in dogs, and they do not represent a "rearrangement" of the bones any more than is seen in dogs. Again I quote for emphasis:
quote: You can see this in the drawings, it is clear that the bones change sizes and that the jostling of positions is due to those changing sizes. Just as we see in some dogs compared to other dogs. We see incremental changes in size and shape of bones in these intermediate fossils, just as we see incremental differences in size and shape of bones in some dogs compared to other dogs. The only place you see movement of the bones that is not associated with the size changes is after the mammalian ear has been formed, and it becomes detached from the jaw bone. This kind of detachment of bones where their attachment no longer serves a purpose is common (ie whale hips, etc) As you can see the evolution develops by stages, by gradations, by intermediate steps, with different things occurring at different times of the overall transition. Note the time scale on the drawing: to be intermediate the fossils need to be found in the right location and the right time to fit between the ancestor and the offspring. They do. Note that Tiktaalik was found by determining the right time (geological layering) and place (environment) for the intermediate fossil, and then looking in that specific formation. That is how science works: prediction and test and validation. 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 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But I think you're missing the point. Faith said, and you quoted her and put it in bold, that "the bones all fit together the same way". Well, the bones do in fact fit together the same way --- just like the bones of humans and chimps fit together in the same way, though Faith probably wouldn't use that as an example.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I thought maybe I could use some of that black space on my picture to quote these:
The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society "The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology "The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute. I'm thinking maybe just the second one, in small type at the bottom. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
But I think you're missing the point. Faith said, and you quoted her and put it in bold, that "the bones all fit together the same way". Well, the bones do in fact fit together the same way --- just like the bones of humans and chimps fit together in the same way, though Faith probably wouldn't use that as an example. I was considering 'fit together the same way' to mean 'be in the same relative position to one another', which the dog bones clearly aren't. All that changed with the therapsid bones was relative size, shape and position - all of which vary in the dog skulls.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So let's stop insisting on a fruitless argument that this is what species means when we don't really mean, and it doesn't actually. If you both agree that a daughter population can be genetically incompatible with its parent, then what's the disagreement? Yep, that was kind of where I was heading on "species" as really a term of reference, a generally homogeneous breeding population but some fringes. The important thing to the evolution of diversity is the separation of a breeding population into two (or more) daughter populations that do not generally interbreed, whether for physical, biological or behavioral reasons, and then are free to evolve independently as a separate branch in the clade. Distinctive differences in evolution occur between populations when they are isolated from one another by any mechanism. ps -- nice dog skulls. You could also compare shoulders of boxers and greyhounds. Edited by RAZD, : spby 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 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Variations are the differences within a breeding population generation, while gradations are the differences between generations of a breeding population. I don't know if that holds up, but the main thing I'd want to keep in mind is whether the gradation that is seen is anything at all like the gradation imagined between the bones being discussed that have to undergo changes from the reptilian to the mammal as the evolutionary pathway. That would take many generations at least, but my objection is I don't think it's genetically possible, and the dog breeds example isn't relevant. I think this is the only part of that post I missed earlier.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You strike out my argument claiming it has been refuted. Then show me the refutation. All refutations I've myself refuted in turn. This is another reason for me to abort this discussion.
Relative sizes in dog bones is not the same thing as the repositioning and other changes needed for evolution between reptiles and mammals. Size is regulated throughout the dog body type for all its parts. The differences between reptile bones and mammal bones have to be in their respective genomes. There is no way genetically for changes to occur that could change the bones from one to the other and so far nobody has shown an example that is relevant.
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. The fossils are not the evidence. We are looking for evidence that the different bones did evolve from one type to the other, or even that they could evolve genetically, and so far no evidence has been produced.
By the spacial\temporal matrix that connects the fossils. Which means what? There is no evidence to be found in their location as far as I know although nobody has produced information about exactly where they were found in relation to each other. Nearby or at great distance from each other?
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. I don't know, but I do know that you can't assume genetic relatedness from mere physical location or morphology, and again, I don't know of any genetic processes that could make such changes as imagined between the different structures over time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the case of "bones evolving in that fashion," what would happen if there was a shift in ossification points (the points at which the bone begins ossifying) so that they were slightly further apart, or in a different location? What if an ossification point was added or the regulation of the existing points was changed so they expanded for a greater or lesser amount of time? What if an ossification point was deleted or down regulated? Show me that ANY structural changes occur in normal genetics.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted.
How would you identify "genetic depletion" in a specimen you have been given to characterize? First I assume I'd know if it could still breed with the parent organisms. Second I would look at the percentage of fixed loci or homozygosity in the genome for the distinctive traits.
What does "genetic depletion" look like from a molecular point of view? What kind of test would you propose to see if an organism is "genetically depleted?" See above. But there are two ways to go about checking reduction in genetic diversity from population to population:1) is to collect specimens from ring species in the wild to see what differences there are in the genome from one population to the next. Fewer alleles for the dominant traits, or an increase in fixed loci from one population to the next for the dominant traits. 2) The other would be to control populations in a lab environment, starting from a few pairs and letting them breed for a few generations, then taking a few pairs from that new population and doing the same thing until you get to a point that no further variations are being produced. Check the DNA for each population. First generation would be like the Pod Mrcaru lizards; isolating another set of pairs would be the next step etc. I expect the changes to occur and spread through the population in a much shorter period than the thirty years it took for those lizards to develop their large heads.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However, I did read your comment that, ' ... old ages are simply out of the question.'
No explanation, no reasoning, ... Not true, I did offer reasons, but they follow from my argument: evolution reduces genetic diversity. Evolution happens a lot faster than is allowed for by the ToE. Millions of years is fictional. Nothing would be left alive after even a million years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you didn't want debate when you set up this thread, even though "we win" certainly is going to provoke debate. Then when you get debate you attack the person and treat the argument like trash.
I like my argument, I think it's viable, I think it kills evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024