|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you show some pictures of some fossils and you think that proves anything? The fossil record should, if evolution is correct, show us each transitional species that lead on to the next. Where are they? There are several different forms, but nothing in between. The fossil record does not support evolution, please show me all the thousands, if not millions, of transitional species that go in between those few fossils you showed. Maybe then you'll actually have a leg to stand on. As it is, the fossil record discovered since Darwin shows stasis and saltation. He told us to relinquish his theory if no transitional species were found, why don't you take his advice? Typical creationist baloney.
quote: Sorry, you assertion is false. Will you be "characteristically pleased to be contradicted with this information"? Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well now that is interesting! Thank you for sharing. You're welcome.
However, as you so astutely pointed out to me in another thread: how much change does an organism require to become an entire new species. According to that fossil record, no new species were created, it was just the same species varying slightly. In your opinion. In the opinion of the scientists doing the work (Dr. Philip Gingerich, Dr. Richard Haskin) there were several. But what would they know. This image shows several species in three genera, from a pdf behind a paywall:
You can also see more here (scroll down to figure 4.2), which also includes copelemur as well as pelycodus.
And please link me to the 'hundreds' of supposed speciations the guy has witnessed, ... That would be Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) ... as I know for a fact that no mutation has ever been witnessed adding information to a genome. Just as I know for a fact that "information" is either added or the concept is irrelevant to evolution ... see Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If they're Darwinian-evolutionists then they don't know much about species, as he couldn't even define the term. Says the person using "information" as if it was a well defined term used in biology.
If they don't even know exactly what a species is, how can they tell when there are different ones? Curiously organisms could care less what we call them, what they "care about" is survival and breeding. If they can't breed with another individual, then they don't. You can see this at the top where there is a gap between P.frugivorus and P.jarrovii. The other names are arbitrary speciation tags the scientists use to distinguish which populations they are discussing. That's why breeding populations are more important than any name we put on them.
That link gives hardly any information about the differences between the supposed species, in the picture of all the varying ones, the all look pretty much the same. Other than a continual trend in sizes of the breeding population. That is what shows anagenesis, the accumulation of evolutionary change over many generations:
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary. At the top we clearly see a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
And any changes that did appear in those single-cell organisms cannot be compared to higher animals, which are far more complex. What are "higher" animals? Seriously - what makes some animals "higher" other than personal bias? Again, this is a difference in degree(if that) and not a different type of change: genetic change is genetic change, regardless of the individual involved. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Probably the same thing as Darwin meant. Doesn't really answer the question does it? What makes one animal "higher" than another -- is it standing on a mountain? In your words. Curiously I though Victorian attitudes were just a bit passe ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Higher animals have specialised tissues and organs that contribute to the proper functioning of the whole animal [CRR] Which is higher, a cow or a pig? Aren't trees higher animals?
quote: In modern biology there is no distinction of "higher" and "lower" organisms. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : formatby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Humans are also the only ones that habitually ingest alcohol 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate, please? This statement of yours:
Message 465: The fossil record reveals the miserable failure of Darwism's most fundamental prediction - gradualism. ... Is false: (a) it is not "fundamental" and (b) Darwin also discussed periods of rapid change between periods of little change. This statement of yours:
Message 469:The bet Darwin never suspected that the superstition of spontaneous generation would reappear in a different form - Punctuated Equilibrium. Is false: spontaneous generation has absolutely nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. These are two examples take from two recent posts of yours, showing a consistent pattern of telling falsehoods. When you repeat falsehoods after being told they are falsehoods, that shows intent to tell falsehoods: lying. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course gradualism is fundamental to ToE - does a fish grow a foot overnight? ROFLOL ... do you mean growing 12 inches or growing a new appendage? Individual growth rates have absolutely nothing to do with rates of population evolution and nothing to do with ToE. Growing a new appendage would be the "hopeful monster" of creationist imaginary and false understanding of evolution.
Different rates of gradualism is still gradualism. So the slow rate of gradualism during periods of relative stassis in a population, and the higher rate of gradualism during periods if punctuation in a population ... are still gradualism. Punk-eek is not the "hopeful monster" of fevered creationist imagination. This is actually what Dawkin's argued in counter to Gould's punk-eek claim. Glad you sorted that out. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... but of successive failed divine creations that existed and were destroyed ... fixed it for you
... This creation we live in now will in turn be replaced ... another failure how many times before they get it right or they get fired for incompetence? by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My theory involves ... As you can see, this is a u-beaut theory ... What is your falsification test? Without a falsification test it cannot be a scientific theory.
Since the earth has existed in corrupted states, there exist the possibilities of multiple catastrophes that are interpreted as the various "geological ages" by scientists. (Origen - an early Church father - suggested the possibility of many more creations than the few I have envisaged.) Even calling it a hypothesis would appear to be a stretch. This looks more like the concept of a stumbling, bumbling, patch-work god/s of the god-did-it variety. Run into a problems then whip out another god-did-it add-on.
Goodness gracious, this is too deep for my shallow mind. Please don't mention such too-magnificent thoughts again. In other words, keep it dumb. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Words of one syllable or less? It seems Trump is the rube standard. by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... The civil rights movement was invented by Communists ... Wrong.
... and the 1960's anti-war movement was also a Communist construct ... Wrong.
... Western Communists trying to defend their comrades in the East and funded largley by the USSR. ... Wrong.
... Martin Luther King was a Christian frontman for Communists. ... Wrong.
... It ain't rocket science. Paranoid delusion never is. You've been reading too much right wing paranoid propaganda. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ignorance is bliss. ... You must know. To me ignorance is like a 50 year old person still wearing a diaper and thinking it is the emperor's new clothes. If that is bliss for you then enjoy it.
... The Achilles' Heel of the Left is their poor aptitude for distinguishing fact from fiction. Then back up your statements with facts to show they aren't fiction. Bet you can't, bet you won't even try. You don't know what facts are. Facts don't depend on politics or preferences, they are objective, empirical and indifferent to your biases. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In other words, you can't demonstrate that my theology is wrong. There are many fantasies and delusions that we have no need to demonstrate whether or not they are "wrong" -- because they are irrelevant. You can believe any little conceptual framework you like to construct around your pet beliefs, but that doesn't make them real or relevant to any other person. If you would like to convince anyone that your mental ramblings are of value, the onus is on you to show how it is supported. And that's why science is better than any theology, especially those that are compiled from after the fact god-did-it that way blustering -- because if it IS wrong THAT can be demonstrated. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Well, many fossils have been found but they cannot be submitted as evidence for evolution. ... Can they be used as evidence that falsifies evolution? That is the question. That is how science works. Evidence that doesn't falsify a theory becomes part of the pile of evidence used to formulate the theory. We don't need evidence for evolution, we know it is happening all around us, we know that it has been tested by fossils and by DNA genomes, and we know that no evidence to date suggests that they cannot be explained by evolution.
... Here's why: The fossils that have been discovered so far could represent only the tiniest fraction of the total number of fossils in existence. So our present fossil collection could be so small as to be "statistically insignificant". An election result can't be decided if only 0.01% of the votes have been counted, can it? Irrelevant. The question important to science is whether or not there is evidence can falsify evolution.
Furthermore, since there is no way of knowing the total number of fossils in existence, there is no way of knowing when a "statistically significant" number of fossils have been collected. In which case, the fossil record can never be safely used as definitive empirical evidence for evolution. Also irrelevant. The question important to science is whether or not there is still whether evidence can falsify evolution. As you have seen, all fossils found fall into nested hierarchies, all fossils found can be explained by evolution, including all the intermediate forms. We don't need evidence FOR evolution, so the question is still whether evidence can falsify evolution. This is another teaching moment brought to you by Dredge on how science works. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024