quote:
It's not an assumption, it's the reasonable conclusion from the facts: nothing could live on the sedimentary layers continuous over great areas that make up the geological column. Tapeats over most of North America, etc.
So you are claiming that the basis for your conclusion can’t be an assumption because your say that your position is a reasonable conclusion from the facts. Which is just a rather convoluted way of asserting that your assumption is a fact.
Except it isn’t. It’s an assumption. And the fact that you are arguing by assertion rather than supporting your opinion does nothing to change that.
At best all you are doing is confusing your opinion with the facts. Which goes a long way to explain why your arguments are unconvincing.
quote:
Now THAT is an example of arrogant bluster.
It is a conclusion from the observed facts that the "time periods" were never surface: the prevalent lack of erosion and the knife-edge contacts.
Except that you are wrong. Lack of erosion and sharp contacts indicate pretty much continuous deposition, not necessarily fast deposition. Moreover the presence of trace fossils, such as footprints, which belong on the surface indicate that there was a surface there. And there are erosional surfaces, too, some of them quite deeply eroded.
quote:
Actually it's just the reasonable conclusion from the facts.
The facts do not show that even us amateurs here are wrong about everything, let alone the scientists. They do show that you are very frequently wrong. You want us to see you as Lord, but Liar or Lunatic are the only viable options. Quite likely both.
quote:
As the rule, but as I go on to point out there's no reason it wouldn't happen just as rapidly in nature.
Apart from the fact that selective pressures are very, very rarely as strong.
quote:
All it would take is a few members of a population becoming geographically and therefore reproductively isolated from the parent population, breeding among themselves for whatever number of generations it takes until their combined genomes produce a brand new species/subspecies. Could even take only thirty years.
Since no species has ever been produced by selective breeding - and there is a rather obvious theoretical problem in it - that isn’t something you know to be true.
Even worse, recessive traits are slow to be selected (they CAN’T be selected before they appear). A new dominant trait would require a mutation, but could be selected rather quicker. An environmental response would be much, much faster and that’s a major reason for suspecting that it is at least part of the Pod Mrcau story. But nobody knows.
quote:
Yes of course, but the example was to demonstrate that it doesn't take millions of years to get new species
Which it doesn’t do. Artificial selection hasn’t produced a new species, and its results aren’t matched in nature. Wolves are still wolves. Stock Doves are still Stock Doves.
quote:
What's unfair here is your method of arguing, since I never claimed equivalence, I used it as an example of how variation is produced and so did Darwin. However there's no reason such strong selection couldn't occur in nature too, depends on the environmental pressure.
Except that you are using the timescale for selective breeding as an indication of the expected timescale in nature. Which Darwin didn’t do. Because it is obviously wrong. It’s not unfair to point that out. And environmental pressures that strong are rare and likely to be lethal. Your argument presumes that such strong pressures are the norm.
quote:
It takes extreme breeding practices to produce such dramatic phenotypes, such as Founder Effect, and that does happen in nature too -- cheetah, elephant seal -- but is also known to be detrimental to the health of the animal.
To the best of my knowledge neither the cheetah nor the elephant seal have phenotypes significantly different from their ancestors from before the bottleneck. And you have never produced any evidence to the contrary. And that is not that surprising since bottlenecks are generally not selective.
quote:
The problem here is your reading things into what I've said.
No. The problem is that your argument is obviously very, very bad.
quote:
I choose the controlled conditions because the point is easier to make, and controlled conditions may occur in nature too, often meaning geographic isolation.
In other words you forgot that your controlled conditions work much faster than ordinary selection. Geographic isolation does not automatically produce strong selection, either.
If you need (at a minimum) hundreds of groups to simultaneously become geographically isolated, for all of them to experience implausibly strong selection - and survive, and all of them to break out of their isolation and flourish in a few hundred years then you haven’t got a scenario that is at all likely.
quote:
What's rare about it is only that it was a very rare opportunity to see that evolution can occur very rapidly, which normally is not observable
It was surprising because evolution that rapid is rare. That’s why you have only the one example - and we don’t even know that that is the result of evolution. Introduced species on islands are not nearly so rare since human took up sea travel. You would think that you would have more examples if simply isolating a small population were all that was required.
quote:
I am making a case for rapid evolution in contrast with the ToE's huge time spans. Wherever evolution is actually observed it is rapid and nowhere near the assumed time frames of the ToE.
The ToE timeframe for a speciation event can be about a thousand years. That’s not so slow. And I will note that fast evolution would obviously be easier to see, and you haven’t got many examples - and none of speciation.
quote:
You have evidence of mutations here and there being an ingredient in the formation of a new species, you do not have evidence that suh an expressed nondeleterious mutation is anything more than a very occasional occurrence. I'm making the case for genetic potentials built in at the creation and observation supports this case
Except that you have ‘t got much of a case for that. You certainly don’t have a case that it is the whole story with the trilobites. And I will note that the relative rarity of beneficial mutations is one of the factors responsible for the slower rate of evolutionary change over the long term. And you don’t have any known examples of long term change based solely on genetic potential at all. Indeed it is a common YEC argument that the limits of variation are quickly reached.
And let me repeat the important point. Your whole argument about trilobite diversification assumes that you are right. When all you have is a very weak case - and that is all you do have - any argument that relies on it is automatically weak. For the purposes of this discussion I don’t need to prove you wrong, just show that your case isn’t strong enough to be taken for granted.
quote:
Actually it was merely an aside in recognition that there is a great deal of variety in the fossil trilobites, more than I would expect to occur in a given population today (although the dog Kind gives them some competition), which my paradigm does explain
Dogs don’t have nearly the variation in relative size, nor much variation in eye structure at all, or the range of ornamentation so I really disagree that dogs come that close. But let me point out that you claimed that trilobite evolution was obviously microevolution which is based on assuming your paradigm - and if you are wrong about that your ideas about the timescale DO go out the window. It’s not just an aside, it’s a necessary assumption.
quote:
Funny, it looks the other way around to me.
You have no evidence regarding the trilobite genome at all. Your scenario assumes unlikely events that are not evidenced. You assume that genetic bottlenecks produce significant phenotypic change without even checking that your supposed examples DID experience significant phenotypic change because of the bottlenecks. And that’s not even a complete listing of the issues in this post. Does that really look like you have evidence or reason on your side ?
™ Version 4.2
(1)