|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Well may you speak of "value". ... Note that I added my comment to show that you haven't even attempted to answer it.
... The theory that all life on earth evolved from a microbe ... ... is not a theory, certainly it is not THE theory of evolution (ToE) ... but you have been told this before, and blunder on blindly with your ignorance. It is a conclusion reached from the evidence we have. It may be one population of single cell life or several that participated in horizontal transfer of genes (primitive sex), once life had developed on earth. There certainly is no evidence of any other precursors from over 3 billion years ago.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis(1), and the process of cladogenesis(2), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Scientific theories explain evidence. The evidence shows that the oldest life forms are microbes, and the evidence shows that over time organisms with more complex forms arose. The theory of evolution explains how this can occur via known biological processes. If the evidence showed a different pattern in the past, then our theory of how the diversity of life developed would have to explain that evidence. This has been another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge.
... has contributed nothing to the advancement of science and therefore has no scientific value at all. The theory of evolution has contributed to the advancement of medicine and breeding of pets, livestock and food plants. Again your stumbling ignorance is refuted by reality. Enjoy Notes:(1) anagenesis is the process of lineal change within species over generations. (2) cladogenesis the process of division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. This forms a clade (nested hierarchy). 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: We don't need evidence for evolution, we know it is happening all around us What is "happening all around us" that can be used as evidence that all life on earth evolved from a microbe? See Message 560 regarding your confusion between conclusions and theories. What is "happening all around us" are the processes of evolution -- anagenesis and cladogenesis. If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
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. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
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. Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch. An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade (a nested hierarchy) has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. These are the processes of evolution. They are happening all around us.
What is "happening all around us" that can be used as evidence that all life on earth evolved from a microbe? Again, as noted in Message 560:
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis(1), and the process of cladogenesis(2), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Scientific theories explain evidence. The evidence shows that the oldest life forms are microbes, and the evidence shows that over time organisms with more complex forms arose. The theory of evolution explains how this can occur via known biological processes. So you have had this answered twice.
As you have seen, all fossils found fall into nested hierarchies, all fossils found can be explained by evolution, including all the intermediate forms.
A story doesn't equal a fact. The theory explains the evidence, and the degree that all the evidence is explained is a measure of the validity of the theory. With no invalidating evidence, a theory that explains the evidence and makes useful predictions, is accepted as the best explanation we have for the evidence. Calling it "a story" does not diminish the validity of the theory nor it's ability to make useful predictions. And so closes another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Okay, - anagenesis is lineal change within a species ... Microevolution over many generations. It appears we can agree on that. ALL evolution occurs "within a species" ... there are no other mechanisms than the processes of evolution "within a species" -- so this should be no surprise to anyone knowledgeable about evolution.
- cladogenesis is speciation. ... Microevolution in reproductively isolated populations, each population undergoing anagenesis, each one accumulating different changes from the other/s (and the parent population), until they are different species. Each population is evolving via lineal change within a species, and the results for each branch viewed alone would look identical to anagenesis. It is only because there are multiple lineages from a common ancestor that we can see differences between the populations accumulating until they are different species, and yes, this IS speciation. It appears we can agree on that.
... . Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers will form a nested hierarchy, no doubt, but only of Green Warblers. And dogs will always be dogs, but hey, kudos on seeing how nested hierarchies form, and recognizing that all descendants within a nested hierarchy will always be descendants of the original parent population. The names\labels may change, but those are just arbitrary designations used by humans to improve communication, nature doesn't care how we label things. First there is a single species population of greenish warblers. Then it becomes a species population of greenish warblers with relatively isolated population with reduce gene flow, resulting in multiple (5) varieties of greenish warbler. Then the isolation increases and you end up with a genus of greenish warblers rather than just a species (the name is changing), now with several species as the varieties become different species (via speciation). Then each of these new species could then undergo the same division into varieties that over time become new species, and they each become a genus and original "greenish warbler" designation becomes a family (again the name\label is changing). The names may change, but those are just arbitrary designations used by humans to improve communication, nature doesn't care how we name or label things.
... and therefore has nothing to do with macroevolutionary changes. ... I fail to see how Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers is evidence that they are on there way to evolving into eagles or pelicans or whatever. ... So your answer doesn't help me understand what is "happening all around us" that provides evidence of macroevolution. Perhaps the problem is with the term "macroevolution" and your understanding of it's meaning versus the one used in science. Care to give us your definition of macroevolution so that we can talk about it the same way? What is macroevolution? In science macroevolution is defined as anagenesis plus cladogenesis, which you seem to agree occurs around us. What else do you expect to occur? Let us know and we can proceed with this latest teachable moment bought to us by Dredge. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
My fragile, egg-shell mind is having trouble dealing with this question. Please don't ask it again. Care to give us your definition of macroevolution so that we can talk about it the same way? What is macroevolution? And yet you had no trouble talking about macroevolution in Message 575 where you said:
... and therefore has nothing to do with macroevolutionary changes. ... I fail to see how Green Warblers speciating into more Green Warblers is evidence that they are on there way to evolving into eagles or pelicans or whatever. ... So your answer doesn't help me understand what is "happening all around us" that provides evidence of macroevolution. So how can I help you understand "macroevolution" if you don't have some idea of what the term means - even if it is just some vague idea. That is why I also asked (Message 580):
In science macroevolution is defined as anagenesis plus cladogenesis, which you seem to agree occurs around us. What else do you expect to occur? Italics added for emphasis. Let us know what else you expect to occur, and then we can discuss how realistic that expectation is. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't prove that a piece of a reptile's jaw bone evolved into the inner ear bones of a mammal - you can't even prove that such a thing is possible. Once again we see a misunderstanding of how science works. In science theories cannot be proven, they can be validated or invalidated. Theories make predictions that can be used as tests of the theory: if they fail the test then the theory is invalidated and needs to be revised or discarded, but if they pass the test the theory is validated - but not proven, because the next test could invalidate it. The theory of evolution then predicts that IF the mammalian ear structure developed from the reptilian ear structure by evolutionary processes, THEN there would be intermediates between these structures. So this is a test of the theory: ARE THERE INTERMEDIATES? Yes. In fact there are many in the fossil record that show a progression over time from the reptilian jaw/ear structure (where the single ear bone is attached to the three bone jaw) to the mammalian jaw/ear structure (where the three bone ear is separated from the single jaw bone). This includes several species with double jointed jaws (the original reptilian joint and the new mammalian joint). Others show differences in the sizes of these bones as they change over time, adapting to the new structure. When placed in their respective locations within the spacio-temporal matrix they form a linear progression from one ancestral state to the newer derived state, not just one intermediate but intermediates between intermediates between intermediates -- just as predicted by evolution. This is not "proof" ... but it is strong validation of the theory. Consider that there is no reason for such gradations of intermediates to exist if evolution is not the process involved. Another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The conclusion/hypothesis that all life evolved from microbes is "nice to know" for atheists, but to science , it's "useless to know". So for all intents and purposes, it's a philosophical/psychological argument, not a scientific one. So, what you're saying is that scientific knowledge which explains things about the natural world is "useless" if it contradicts someone's religious beliefs? No, it's useless for people that avoid science. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If you have won the argument that all life on earth evolved from microbes, then you have won nothing - it is completely useless information. Is it? What it means is that creation did not play a part, no matter what all the various religious beliefs pretend happened, and we can stop indoctrinating children with false information. We can stop lumbering our education with misinformation about evolution and reality. We can teach science unencumbered by delusions. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
I will investigate this ridiculous claim. My expectation is that it is based on a vast amount of wishful thinking and vivid imagination, that is in turn is the product of an a priori commitment to the atheist belief that all life on earth evolved from microbes. In fact there are many in the fossil record that show a progression over time from the reptilian jaw/ear structure (where the single ear bone is attached to the three bone jaw) to the mammalian jaw/ear structure (where the three bone ear is separated from the single jaw bone). This includes several species with double jointed jaws (the original reptilian joint and the new mammalian joint). Others show differences in the sizes of these bones as they change over time, adapting to the new structure. Whether or not you are honest in undertaking this endeavor I suggest you engage with a librarian to help you find the material. For an introduction to the fossil record that pertains to the progression of jaw/ear bones I can suggest you start with:
quote: There's more in the article. Unfortunately they don't identify their references, but a good reference librarian should be able to sort them out. The fossils mentioned are only the hightlights of the transition, as there are many more that fill in around them. Another resource is Palaeos Vertebrates: Therapsida Overview - it is an interactive presentation of the nested hierarchy and the various intermediate forms. You can click on any of the groups to get more information, and if you click on Cynodontia you get the next page and:
quote: Hurray we are derived cynodonts. The link at the end of the cynodonts dendrogram is broken, it should link to this Mammaliformes page, and at the bottom of this dendrogram portion is Mammalia. We are also derived mammaliforms. Keep going and you can get to primates and Primate cladogram evolution Another teaching moment brought to us by Dredge. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Obviously, YECs are good at judging things. I think Dredge is somewhere between OEC and Gap Creationist. An old earth does not bother him or his beliefs, old life does. But the logic pitfalls that hobble YEC also hobble other forms of Christian creationism, especially in regards to fossils and the evidence they provide for (1) the earliest life being single cell prokaryotes similar to modern blue-green algae, and (2) the natural history of life on earth falling into nested hierarchies based on homologies and shared derived features. There are also Hindu Old Age Creationists and Muslim Young Earth Creationists, so a better inclusive term is just Creationist. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I tend to see myself as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe logically has a Creator ... You are evolving into a Deist ... 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I came back and was delighted to see some movement on this thread ...
... only to find it has been ruined and turned into another Faith flood foolery thread. 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Perhaps the best summary is to quote from two posts on this thread.
The first in reply to ICANT's post Message 66,
from my Message 90 reply: No, you create a totally post hoc tortuous jamming of what you believe to fit around the facts. The same approach would apply if the evidence did not support evolution, in fact it would apply to any kind of evidence no matter what it was. Thus it does not explain the evidence. The question for you, the one you have not addressed, is why does the evidence fit the expected patterns of evolution completely without exception, from species to species and from era to era, ... the complete geological, geographical and biological pattern? When you ask:
Message 67: How does a bunch of pictures lined up in a row which are said to be millions of years apart ... Is not it just just as plausible that they were created as they are found in different parts of eternity? If sudden independent creation were the cause, then why are all the fossils located in time and space within walking distance of each other, instead of on the other side of the world? Eg - why are the various ancient hominid fossils found not just in Africa, but a specific area of Africa -- why not some in Asia and some in Australia and some in the Americas? Sudden independent creation, as a scientific hypothesis, should predict no relation in location or time for similar appearing fossils, because it has no mechanism to cause such a relationship. That is the one "test" that would show that it was valid in place of evolution, and that the evidence (epic) fails to fall in line with that prediction, should be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is false. IFF you want to approach things scientifically instead of by hand waving ... Or, as Dr A says, the evidence is an elaborate hoax created specifically to fool people into thinking a falsehood. God as Loki. It's not just a simple arrangement of pictures selected and arranged to fit the theory, it is the arrangement of the fossils by their relative location in both time and space -- the objective empirical data does the arranging, not the scientist. The Theory of Evolution explains this spacio-temporal matrix, special creation does not. and the second in reply to Faith's post Message 116,
from my Message 119 reply:
Arranged by time the evolutionary trends appear. I've been looking for better, more complete graphics, but it seems there are not that many out there that have the newest information. So far the best collection I have seen is at wikipedia:
quote: That graphic clearly shows both the temporal and the spacial distribution of the fossils and the clear connections from one find to the others, where widening areas show diversification (cousins and possible sub-species), and the overlaps show probably hybridization, and the flow up shows some dead ends, with the one path that leads to Homo sapiens, with it's current diversification and global distribution, just as expected.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) |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024