Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 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

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


(1)
Message 226 of 2887 (769832)
09-25-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:58 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
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 ...
Nope. That is creationist thinking, not scientific biological evolution.
That speciation keeps occurring doesn't change the fact that all life belongs to the same species they were born in.
... What we SEE is only microevolution within the genome of a given species, we do not see evolution beyond those limits.
There are no limits to what a species can be as an organism, but it will always be the same species it was born in.
We see species change into new species, but curiously they are still a species.
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.
In fact it may have enough for hundreds of new species ... because you will say the same thing when each new species occurs.
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.
Poppycock that belongs on your fantasy Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread not here.
I don't know what you mean by "why should it end today?"
Because so far there is no evidence that evolution is stopping or even slowing down.
Where did I say any such thing? See above for what I hope is a clearer description of my view.
Well you keep on making these long doomsday pronouncements I sort of expected that we would see some actual results, when instead all we see is evolution proceeding as it always has.
And your point is?
That your "outrage" at speciation occurring is pointless. It happens, and it happens as speciation is defined, and there is no point to you complaining about it.
Use the terminology of science as it is used and defined by that science: all you are doing is making yourself upset ... over a word definition.
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 211 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:58 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 228 of 2887 (769839)
09-25-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
09-25-2015 11:21 AM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
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.
Dead wrong. Every mutt mixture of breeds and half breeds and feral wild dog proves you are wrong. That would be creationist fantasy transformation, certainly not evolution. Every breeder will tell you that you are wrong.
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.
Argument from incredulity. We were talking about the bones changing shape and alignment, and now that you have been given the evidence of the dogs showing similar changes in shape and alignment you bring in a whole new aspect.
The images show they remain in contact, so no matter how "remarkable" you think it is, that is what the evidence shows.
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.
Except that the dog images show losing elements (sagittal crest) shrinking (boxer nose) and expanding (brain cases).
Curiously the stapes functions the same in both and has the same connections (from same source as previous post):
quote:
How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). 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. ...
So you keep saying things that just are not shown in the evidence.
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 221 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 1:21 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 229 of 2887 (769841)
09-25-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
09-25-2015 11:32 AM


Re: Isolation is key to independent evolution
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.
More fantasy poppycock that should be discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
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:
Well I certainly understand that your fantasy genetics has nothing to do with this thread.
The problem you have Faith is that not one person, other than yourself, accepts your fantasy. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I have not seen a single reason, a single piece of evidence to support any of it, and I've seen plenty to refute it: I see no reason to pander to it. It's based on a falsified premise.
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.
No you do not have to regurgitate it on this thread. You need to take your fantasy back to it's thread. Period.
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.
Which has been done with dogs. Not only is it possible for the bones to change but it is observed and documented to have occurred in dogs. So that has been done, and we know that similar evolution in other species is not only possible, it is feasible.
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 222 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:32 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 231 of 2887 (769847)
09-25-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
09-25-2015 1:21 PM


Re: MORE transitionals ...
I suspect that you think I'm wrong about something I didn't say, ...
Or that you said something that you didn't mean. In any event this needs to be on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity not here. See Message 991
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 230 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 1:21 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 245 of 2887 (769888)
09-26-2015 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


Garbage in Garbage out
Edited to move "genetic" PRATTle to Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
See Message 992 on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity for response to the above nonsense. This thread is about fossil evidence and how they show evolution, not about creationist fantasy pseudo-genetics.
The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
And curiously, the problem you are actually highlighting is that ignoring evidence combined with ignorance of evolution in general and genetics in particular, leads to false conclusions not based on facts or evidence, but pure imagination, with all the assurance of Dunning-Kruger effect ignorance.
When every premise you use is wrong, the conclusions are invariably invalid.
Garbage in garbage out.
abe: The fact remains that the fossils bedded in the spatial/temporal matrix show just the types of intermediate stages that the Theory of Evolution predicts. Thus they are also evidence for the validity of the theory.
The fact remains is that the only response from creationists is the silly PRATTle about them being just another species bedded in rocks with no actual relationship to the fossils before and after. This is a silly argument from a scientific viewpoint because it ignores the shared derived traits of the fossils, the progression of new derived traits from older fossils to younger fossils, just as it ignores the time-line of geographical deposition and the curious consilience of location location location.
Curiously, this is also a silly argument from a creationist viewpoint because it requires special creation of these critters for the sole purpose of causing a false trail, created as a joke or a lie, a view of their god/s as jokers. Another case of garbage in garbage out.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : splg
Edited by RAZD, : per admin request
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Admin, posted 09-26-2015 10:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(3)
Message 265 of 2887 (769913)
09-26-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
09-26-2015 12:20 PM


Just the Facts, Mam,
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is.
So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier.
Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here.
Ned's list of facts is in Message 216. I just read it and have no problem with any of those facts. They are the hard facts; the theory is something else that is imposed on those facts. He did a good job of sticking to the facts themselves.
It is fossilized creatures embedded in relatively dated sedimentary layers, layers dated by their positioning of one over the other, layers showing a time sequence. Hard geological evidence.
Message 216 (Ned):
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.
In even more detail the intermediate fossils are found in intermediate layers, demonstrating an intermediate time between those above and those below, putting the intermediate fossils on a time-line from oldest at the bottom to latest at the top.
And the fossils show shared derived traits that put them in a clade. Later (higher layer elevation) fossils show modified traits derived from earlier (lower layer elevation) fossils, with several traits (jaw and ear) showing modified derived traits of previously modified derived traits.
It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence.
Because it is completely based on the subjective assessment of morphologies. ...
And on their relative position in the time relative layers showing a time-line between them.
Nor is it a "subjective assessment" because it is reproducible by different people. If it were subjective then there would not be the massive agreement among scientists that it is a bona fide time dependent sequence.
... But if you arrange them, say, by DNA characteristics of each species, perhaps how many genes etc, you would have to make a different sequence. ...
Don't make up arguments based on evidence that is not available -- that is pure imagination. In addition, your vision of genetics is faulty as is being discussed on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity.
...The idea of their relative ages is completely imposed on the facts, without evidence.
No, Faith, it is completely observed based on the different levels of the different layers, layers that are hard evidence of the time sequence.
Ignoring hard evidence does not make it go away.
Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous.
They aren't, they could be correct, but they aren't hard evidence and shouldn't be treated as hard evidence. So when a creationist comes along and challenges the interpretation it shouldn't be defended with a wall of assertions that it is as good as hard evidence. It isn't.
For a creationist to actually challenge the science they need to do science that challenges the interpretation, not just made up wild fantasies, ignorance and denial. Saying you disagree doesn't challenge the science, it just makes you a doubter. Until you have science to challenge the interpretation then yes, the current scientific explanation IS the best available.
The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution. I don't know why the pattern is so apparently consistent, but when there are other reasons to question the standard interpretation it can't just be taken as fact.
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils?
That the time/location/development sequence is validation of the Theory of Evolution, ... because it is what the theory predicts. It is hard actual objective evidence that the ToE does in fact explain the diversity of life.
If you don't think it is the best explanation, then provide another one that covers ALL the known facts.
And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc. ...
No Faith, that is the creationist approach, in science these things get reviewed by other scientists looking for errors -- it's called peer review.
Do believers in evolution raise these questions?
They've been raised and answered and reviewed and answered again. And they have found evidence that supports the answers, like the iridium layer.
No, for whatever reason there is a pattern to the fossils so when you understand the pattern you can predict from it where to find more examples of the pattern. I don't know how often your predictions pan out but there's no obvious reason they shouldn't. ...
Often enough. Tiktaalik is one example of predicting the find of an intermediate tetrapod based on the spatial/temporal matrix that the theor of evolution predicted that such a transitional would live. Homo naledi and Au. sediba were also predicted to be found, as were a number of hominid fossils. It is pretty safe to say that no paleontologist will look in modern sedimentary deposits for ancient fossils.
... The pattern is a fact but its interpretation is still in doubt. It becomes a problem when there are other considerations that call the ToE interpretation of the pattern into question.
When that "interpretation" continues to provide predicted results for each and every fossil find, it becomes more and more credible.
When there is no other "interpretation" providing anything close to the same results, it becomes even more credible.
And that is what a good powerful scientific theory does -- it provides the best known explanation for all the known facts, it is testable (each new fossil is a test) and it makes predictions (for new fossil finds) that also test the theory, and that validate the theory every time they are found to be correct.
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 250 by Faith, posted 09-26-2015 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 269 of 2887 (769954)
09-27-2015 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-27-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Mam,
Would you not agree that "so apparently consistent" a pattern is strong evidence that it is more correct than just a random pile of fossils?
I've said I can see why it's seductive. ...
Valid observations and solid conclusions driven by those observations and a strong theory that forms an overall explanatory framework are usually compelling.
Let's look at some synonyms for "seductive" -- attractive, captivating, charming, enticing, fascinating, ...
Now I do find fossils to be kind of sexy, but I find they way they consistently fit into the spatial/temporal matrix to be fascinating.
... But if there is no way to get from one creature to another genetically it's a bust.
Which is why evidence that bone shapes and the relative positioning of bones can change in relatively short time (as observed and documented in dog breeding), supports the evidence that this string of individual fossils, each intermediate in form between the next lower\older and the next higher\younger fossils, and showing that the same degree of changes seen in dog breeding, can also have occurred with those fossils due to the same simple observed, known evolutionary processes.
We also have absolutely no evidence that there is some obstacle to evolution from one to the other, and absolutely no evidence of some other method of sudden creation that would place random creatures at just the right time, just the right place and with just the right intermediate structure, and make a string of such faked intermediate structures, to purposefully create a false picture. There is no theory no hypothesis that predicts such fakery.
There is no known observed genetic blockage to evolution, there is no known alternative explanation that is anywhere close to being mildly compelling: these fossils support evolution and do not support any ad hoc creationist fantasy arguments. (ie - "We Have The Fossils. We Win.")
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 266 by Faith, posted 09-27-2015 2:39 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 362 of 2887 (775174)
12-29-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 10:34 AM


so bad too sad
And even though it is not my place to provide evidence ...
Repeated denial is not an argument. Evidence is required to justify a position or it is just hearsay blind opinion. Evidence can convince others that your view has merit, lack of it is grounds for mockery. Thus you are the only who benefits from evidence that substantiates your position -- that is what puts the onus on you to provide it.
... I have done so.
Curiously a single word is not evidence.
Sacsayhauman
quote:
The Inca used similar construction techniques in building Saksaywaman as they used on all their stonework, albeit on a far more massive scale.[10]The stones were rough-cut to the approximate shape in the quarries usingriver cobbles.[19]They were dragged by rope to the construction site, a feat that at times required hundreds of men.[20]The ropes were so impressive that they warranted mentiodn byDiego de Trujillo(1948:63 [1571]) as he inspected a room filled with building materials. The stones were shaped into their final form at the building site and then laid in place.[21]The work, while supervised by Inca architects, was largely carried out by groups of individuals fulfilling their labor obligations to the state. In this system ofmitaor "turn" labor, each village or ethnic group provided a certain number of individuals to participate in such public works projects.[10]
In other words there are known and observed construction techniques that explain the structure without the need for fabricating giants who magically leave no trace of their existence.
Or, more succinctly, this is not evidence of giants, but evidence that a posited existence of giants is not required to explain the structure ... meaning that you still have not provided (objective empirical) evidence to support your position.
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 358 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 10:34 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by herebedragons, posted 12-29-2015 2:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 411 of 2887 (776174)
01-09-2016 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Big_Al35
01-09-2016 5:08 PM


... what would be the best way to supress genuine photos of giants? A creative competition such as the worth1000 encouraging outrageous images and fakery. These fake images can then be circulated and promoted. Soon they will be as numerous as the genuine shots and nobody except the experts will be able to distinguish between them. ...
So the best way to counter the giant hoax that perpetuates the myth of giants is to purposefully make fake photos and articles about giants existing ...
Fascinating.

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 404 by Big_Al35, posted 01-09-2016 5:08 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

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


(3)
Message 420 of 2887 (776268)
01-11-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Big_Al35
01-11-2016 9:38 AM


So the ball is pretty much in your court. If you don't know what a globalist is - YOU need to find out. If you don't know ANY of their plans - YOU need to find out. And if you don't want to find out - I couldn't give a monkeys.
Good, so your attempt to derail the topic and bury it under a blanket of nonsense is done.
We have the fossils, and they show clear evidence of evolution on a grand scale spanning billions of years with a global continuous pattern of development within the spatial temporal matrix, consilient with all other sciences.
If there is a "globalist" conspiracy it is this: science confirms evolution, science confirms that the earth is very very old, science confirms that the universe is even older and still expanding, and there is no methodology no alternate narrative that has the consistency of results and the consistency of evidence.
We don't have just the fossils, we have the weight of objective empirical evidence from all sciences.
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 419 by Big_Al35, posted 01-11-2016 9:38 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 425 of 2887 (776276)
01-11-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by ringo
01-11-2016 10:40 AM


Don't insult Dr Seuss.

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 424 by ringo, posted 01-11-2016 10:40 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024