Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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 211 of 2887 (769799)
09-25-2015 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
09-24-2015 8:30 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But the definition is wrong, misleading, a fraud, word magic. ...
Well you can't stop evolution by rejecting the definition of a word, Faith. You just need to look around you and you can see evolution happening: there is variation in every generation of every species.
Yes, of course, as I've said myself many times. "Microevolution" happens all the time WITHIN SPECIES. It is only assumption based on the ToE that keeps on insisting it transcends the species. What we SEE is only microevolution within the genome of a given species, we do not see evolution beyond those limits.
... If in fact the new breed is genetically depleted the idea is absolutely ridiculous that it's a "new species" with the implied ability to evolve further.
Would you ever consider that it is not full "depleted" yet?
Yes, even the new breed which is wrongly called a "new species" may not be fully genetically depleted. It may still have enough diversity for some further change.
Personally I don't see why you get so hung up on this -- it is still reproduction after their own kind, as you assume happened since your purported all expenses paid round the world mega-yacht trip. You claim all living species are the product of that (super hyper-rapid) evolution: why should it end today?
It only ends for those particular lines of microevolution that have formed from small numbers of individuals, which can occur as the result of enough population splits, small numbers of individuals splitting from the parent and becoming isolated from it, and then the same thing happening from this daughter population after it's become established. It's not the only way evolution occurs but it illustrates the processes I want to highlight. It's basically a ring species I'm talking about, a series of populations forming from a relatively small number of individuals moving away from the parent population and forming a daughter population. There are many different things that can happen to populations so there are many different ways they evolve, but they all roughly follow this pattern. Some populations remain stable for probably hundreds of generations, with some genetic drift however. What I'm describing doesn't HAVE to happen to any given population, but my point is that it represents the evolutionary processes most clearly and shows that their ultimate direction is to genetic depletion as the natural result of the formation of new phenotypes.
Of course as the creatures dispersed from the ark this pattern would have been the most likely, small numbers of individuals breaking off from an established population, becoming geographically isolated at some distance as they found a niche, developing new phenotypes, becoming a new breed, and the same process happening from that base again until the creature was as dispersed as it was going to get. Meanwhile the earlier populations would also have been sending out scouts as it were and developing completely separate populations of new breeds. In those early days there would have been enough genetic diversity to allow for dozens, maybe even hundreds of new breeds. It's only in our time that a continuation of these processes can lead to genetic depletion in some evolving lines.
I don't know what you mean by "why should it end today?"
Of course in evolutionary talk it is still reproduction within a clade and all new species will always be members of that clade. So other than your weird insistence on the evolution of life, once it left the ark, ending *suddenly* in your lifetime,
Where did I say any such thing? See above for what I hope is a clearer description of my view.
there is no real difference in the observation that offspring will always be related to and have traits of their parents.
And your point is?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 8:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 12:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 212 of 2887 (769801)
09-25-2015 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:15 AM


quote:
That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
No. If the evidence is misleading, following it is still following it - even to a false conclusion. These fossils are amazingly good evidence for evolution, and until you produce a better explanation (which does not mean an explanation that you like better) they remain so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:15 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 213 of 2887 (769802)
09-25-2015 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by edge
09-25-2015 3:34 AM


That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
And that's a pretty pathetic understanding of the fossil record.
Actually it's really just an accurate description of the bare facts without the ToE interpretations that turn them into a ladder of evolution. The observed facts include nothing that could show genetic relatedness, they show only a collection of different creatures that may or may not be related. The assumption of relatedness is imposed on the facts, not a fact in itself. And the only reason it's assumed is that it looks like there is a series there. But if it's genetically impossible to get from one species to another, for many reasons including the kinds of changes the fossil record itself appears to require, then all you've done is make up something that is false and imposed it on the facts. At best it remains remains a theory in need of real evidence.
Do you know why?
No. But of course I don't see it as pathetic. Nevertheless maybe you have something new to say?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 09-25-2015 3:34 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 09-25-2015 9:53 AM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 214 of 2887 (769808)
09-25-2015 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
Faith writes:
When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
Your declarations that something is "purely imaginative" and so forth aren't usually accompanied by arguments. Often you offer only baseless aspersions in response to someone else's argument. This forces the other person to repeat their argument or give up, which keeps the discussion from moving forward.
The thread's title reflects the scientific evidence telling us the fossil record is a time ordered record of change from ancient to modern forms. If you think that evidence is wrong or misinterpreted then that's what you should be discussing.
Dr. A has said nothing substantive at all.
Actually, he's calling attention to your own lack of substance.
But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species"...
I didn't say you couldn't object to the term "new species." I said you couldn't redefine the word species. You had said that even if enough evolutionary change occurred to cause an inability to interbreed that it would not be a new species. But inability to interbreed is the main criteria for determining species, so this amounts to a redefinition of the word.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 2887 (769812)
09-25-2015 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
09-24-2015 8:54 PM


The Faith Genetic Fantasy -- see previous thread
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.
See Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity, the thread where you go on and on, but never accept the evidence that shows you are wrong.
Any discussion of your Genetic Fantasy Hypothesis should be done on that thread and not clot this one up.
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 191 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 8:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(4)
Message 216 of 2887 (769813)
09-25-2015 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
09-25-2015 4:37 AM


Just the Facts, Ma'am
Perhaps we should take a breath and try to each state what we think the actual facts are. I'll take a turn as an example and then you can give yours.
1. There are layered fossil baring rocks all over the world.
2. Without referring to absolute ages or even specifying if they are measured in thousands of years or millions of years we can note that on a relative basis older* layers do not contain many of the fossils that are included in newer layers. In fact, with layers far enough apart in relative ages the fossil collections are utterly different.
3. In more detail: there are reptile like fossils in older layers than mammal like fossils and not the reverse.
4. In even more detail there are layers with reptiles like skeletons that have jaws that are not at all like mammalian jaws. In higher layers there are skeletons that do have mammalian jaws. In all layers (times) above a certain point there are mammal like jaws found.
5. Between the newest (highest) layers with no mammal like jaws found and the oldest (lowest) layers with actual mammal like jaws found are layers with skeletons with jaws that are intermediate between full reptile like jaws and mammal like jaws in a layer depth (time) ordered squence from less mammal like lower down to more mammal like higher up.
Which of these facts do you dispute?
*older being for the most part layers under "newer" layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 4:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 10:30 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 219 by jar, posted 09-25-2015 10:52 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 217 of 2887 (769814)
09-25-2015 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
09-24-2015 8:54 PM


Relative size relative position changes in dogs
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. ...
See Message 183: Now to me, it looks like a number of bones show "repositioning" due to their changes in size and shape, the Boxer skull in particular when compared to wolf or greyhound. Look at the shape changes around the eye sockets that show that the orbitals moved and take different positions. The jaw mandible bones also show different positions relative to the upper jaw. The back of the skull moves and takes new positions. The sagittal crest changes shape and is virtually missing on the Chinese Crested ...
quote:

See Message 185: another set of drawings of the transition from non-mammalian amniote to early mammal:
quote:
... Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. ...
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.
... The differences between reptile bones and mammal bones have to be in their respective genomes. ...
A mundane trivial statement. The differences between varieties have to be in their respective genomes, the differences between siblings has 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.
So there is "no way genetically for the changes to occur that could change the bones from" the megafaunal wolf(*) "to the" boxer dog, eh? Really?
The fossils are not the evidence. We are looking for evidence that the different bones did evolve from one type to the other, ...
The fossils ARE the evidence, the bones did not "evolve from one type to the other," they changed shape and moved, they were exapted to form a mammal ear, but they are still the same bones as in the non-mammalian amniote. Their history is clear in the fossils.
... or even that they could evolve genetically, and so far no evidence has been produced.
Dogs again show as much variation and change in bones and placement as seen from one fossil to the next. Each step, each stage each intermediate gradation is no more change than we can see has occurred in dogs.
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?
Enjoy
(*) Pleistocene wolf - Wikipedia
quote:
Megafaunal wolves were similar in physical size to other Pleistocene-era wolves and large extant gray wolves, but with stronger jaws and teeth. They tended to have short, broad palates with large carnassials relative to their overall skull size. These features suggest a wolf adapted for producing relatively large bite forces. The short, broad rostrum increased the mechanical advantage of a bite made with the canine teeth and strengthened the skull against torsional stresses caused by struggling prey. Relatively deep jaws are characteristic of habitual bone crackers, such as spotted hyenas, as well as canids that take prey as large as or larger than themselves. Overall these features indicate that megafaunal wolves were more specialized than modern gray wolves in killing and consuming relatively large prey and scavenging.[1]:1147
Look again at the graphic in Message 185 and the left hand scale shows the relative times of each group with some overlapping (older species continuing after new species formed). If you are really really really interested in the details then you should go to the library like that other creationist did and look - them - up, not sit in your armchair and ask everyone to do your homework.
I don't know, but I do know that you can't assume genetic relatedness from mere physical location or morphology, and again, ...
But you can determine it from shared derived traits and coexistence in the spatial/temporal matrix -- we can do it with the dogs, and we can show that different breeds that were derived from other breeds occurred where those other breeds were located at a time before the breed was recognized and after the previous breed was recognized.
... I don't know of any genetic processes that could make such changes as imagined between the different structures over time.
Then you need to learn more. Perhaps some genuine genetics rather than your Fantasy version.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : exapted

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 191 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 8:54 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 218 of 2887 (769816)
09-25-2015 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by NosyNed
09-25-2015 9:53 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Ma'am
Which of these facts do you dispute?
I don't dispute any of the facts. What I'm disputing is the evolutionist interpretation that this sequence of living things proves evolution, the genetic descent of the higher from the lower. I've acknowledged that the order is very seductive of that sort of interpretation, but nevertheless there never has been any actual evidence of genetic descent, and now I've been arguing that in fact the changes required to get from the reptile bones to the mammal bones are genetically impossible.
This I suppose is one of my arguments that "lacks substance" according to Percy but it's a lack in response to a lack then, an argument against a substanceless argument, since I believe I've shown that the evidence proposed -- principally the dog breeds -- doesn't account for the requirement.
The point I've been making is that genetics doesn't move things around structurally; it doesn't produce gradations from one individual to another or one population to another, it doesn't produce graded shades of brown eyes, it produces either brown or blue or some other color eyes. There are gradations in dog breeds but they are produced by the selection pressure on the desired traits and the gradations are mostly in size and overall look of the thing, not in small points that change in relation to each other.
I think I've made a good observation here: genetics doesn't work the way it would have to work to produce the gradual changes between fossils that is always assumed to be how evolution works. It doesn't produce gradual changes over generations, it produces variations.
This is the first time I've made this argument. This fossil example led me to it. Since it's the first time it's going to have some bugs in it I'll have to work out but so far it just keeps getting stronger as I think it through.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 09-25-2015 9:53 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by edge, posted 09-25-2015 11:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 09-25-2015 12:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2015 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 219 of 2887 (769820)
09-25-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by NosyNed
09-25-2015 9:53 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Ma'am
The answer of course is Continuous Sequential Creation.
In the beginning God created single celled organisms that lived in the sea and all the land was barren.
Then God killed off all those critters and said "Let there be Plants in the Sea" and there were plants in the Sea.
Then God killed off all those plants and created new plants and even plants on land, but no grasses or flowers.
Then later God created grasses and flowers and reptiles but no dinosaurs or mammals.
Then God killed off almost all those reptiles and created dinosaurs and runty little mammals.
And then ... and then ... (insert several more killemoffs) ... and then God created apes.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
All this must be in the Bible, you know, the begets and begots or days of creation or ... wait, once again that isn't what is in the Bible is it?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 09-25-2015 9:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 220 of 2887 (769823)
09-25-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:29 AM


Re: Isolation is key to independent evolution
And this is exactly the sort of scenario I keep talking about. Yes you can get some dramatic new phenotypes this way, and they will be highly divergent from each other. ...
And yet the evidence shows that the dramatic new phenotypes do not occur just after the isolation, but over many generations, with some traits building on other new traits.
... But always always always at the cost of diminishing genetic diversity in relation to the parent population, within each separate daughter population. ...
No, not "always always always" at all. Occasionally, there is an initial loss of some alleles, but this doesn't result in new varieties that can't breed with the parent population, rather they would be varieties already existing within the parent population.
Equally valid are isolations that separate populations with the same initial set of alleles.
In all cases the changes that occur arise from new mutations. Only new mutations can cause breeding isolation.
But this thread is about fossils not genetics, and that discussion is better served on the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread.
We have the fossils and we have the spatial/temporal matrix.
It is like reading history, any historical event occurs within a spatial/temporal matrix, without which the history is not understood, it would just be a jumble of random events without purpose, rhyme or reason. With the context provided by the spatial temporal matrix the events tell a story.
You can try to change the fossil evidence into a jumble of random events without purpose, rhyme or reason by ignoring the context, but you can't make us ignore the spatial/temporal matrix. Just like you can make fantasy history by ignoring context, but you can't change what happened. All you do is fool yourself.
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 209 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:32 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 221 of 2887 (769824)
09-25-2015 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
09-24-2015 1:58 PM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
... Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. ...
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.
The dog breeds change AS A WHOLE, all parts at once, all the bones changing to conform to the overall design of the breed while still articulating according to the Basic Dog Template as it were.
The ear bones would have to change too many things. The Eustachian tube is completely redesigned; the stapes would have to be complete reshaped and lose its root that connects to the quadrate; I'm not quite sure what's going on with that malleus /articular area but it is completely repositioned in relation to the stapes-quadrate and proportionally much larger in relation to them. I don't see how anyone can say the changes dog breeds go through compares at all. Besides which, the dog breeds DO change as a whole, the size and shape of bones are proportional to the overall design. These ear differences are a selected area. It WOULD be remarkable if all the parts remained in "constant contact" through the imagined pathway but in fact it couldn't happen. All we are seeing in that diagram is two entirely different ways the ear was designed for each particular creature, and ears aren't going to work unless those parts are in contact.
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.
You don't see parts losing elements (stapes root), shrinking or expanding in relation to other parts except to a small extent to accommodate to the changing overall structure, or becoming completely different as the stapes did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 12:48 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 222 of 2887 (769825)
09-25-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
09-25-2015 11:20 AM


Re: Isolation is key to independent evolution
And yet the evidence shows that the dramatic new phenotypes do not occur just after the isolation, but over many generations, with some traits building on other new traits.
Yes they need time to work through the new population. The new allele frequencies would start out by producing a variety of new traits in individuals scattered throughout the population and then over the generations develop a more general new look to the whole population as the traits get recombined generation after generation. Which I've many many times already discussed.
RAZD you don't understand my argument at all. I've covered every objection you are making a million times over and since you don't want this topic to continue on this thread let's drop it. But first I have to answer this:
... But always always always at the cost of diminishing genetic diversity in relation to the parent population, within each separate daughter population. ...
No, not "always always always" at all. Occasionally, there is an initial loss of some alleles, but this doesn't result in new varieties that can't breed with the parent population, rather they would be varieties already existing within the parent population.
Here I'm talking about reduced genetic diversity, not the complete depletion that would lead to loss of interbreeding. You don't understand one thing about my argument and yet supposedly you've followed it through how many threads by now?
I'd really rather not have to go back through that argument in all its details on this thread.
Yes the thread is about fossils but the thing is you can't talk about the fossils EVOLVING unless you can prove that it's genetically possible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 11:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 223 of 2887 (769826)
09-25-2015 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
09-24-2015 8:33 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
I don't know if that holds up, ...
And I see no reason why it wouldn't, when again it is a matter of terminology used. Variations within a breeding population, gradations between generations of a breeding population. As seen in Pelycodus, foraminifera, etc etc etc etc etc
... 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.
The dog example is relevant because it shows the amount of change that can easily happen to bone size and relative positioning. The variation seen in dogs is no different than the change seen between each intermediate form.
Of course it would take many generations, just as developing the dog breeds took many generations of particular selection. Each intermediate would take many generations ... but that time is there in the spatial/temporal matrix for those generations to occur, many times more time than was needed for the dog breeds.
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 190 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 8:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 224 of 2887 (769827)
09-25-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
09-25-2015 10:30 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Ma'am
I don't dispute any of the facts.
Okay, so you accept Ned's facts.
The point is that you left out a few of them in your description of 'a collection of fossils that might be related.'
This is what you said:
That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species.
Actually it's really just an accurate description of the bare facts...
That's a pretty bare description of what we know. In fact, that's what people thought about fossils a couple of hundred years ago.
I think Ned made it pretty clear that there are a lot of other facts which you may not deny, but you surely ignore them.
The most important one of these is the fact that they line up in a sequence through time. That's kind of important.
What I'm disputing is the evolutionist interpretation that this sequence of living things proves evolution, ...
No one is saying 'proven', at least not in the absolute sense the you are asking for.
... the genetic descent of the higher from the lower.I've acknowledged that the order is very seductive of that sort of interpretation, but nevertheless there never has been any actual evidence of genetic descent, and now I've been arguing that in fact the changes required to get from the reptile bones to the mammal bones are genetically impossible.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'genetic descent' here. Of course we don't have genetic data here. These are fossils that we are talking about.
I think I've made a good observation here: genetics doesn't work the way it would have to work to produce the gradual changes between fossils that is always assumed to be how evolution works. It doesn't produce gradual changes over generations, it produces variations.
This is not an observation. It is a conclusion that you have drawn based on your religious mythology and rejection of the principle of relative ages.
If you think it is an obseration, please show us where we can look to see the same thing as you.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 10:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 225 of 2887 (769829)
09-25-2015 11:49 AM


Moderator Request
I think RAZD's suggestion to take the genetics discussion to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread is a good one.
This thread is for discussing the strength of the evidence in the fossil record for evolutionary change over time. If it did happen then if it wasn't by genetics then it was by some other means.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024