Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 2:02 AM
211 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, ICANT, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 206 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,277 Year: 19,100/29,783 Month: 1,045/2,043 Week: 90/507 Day: 1/89 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 31 of 41 (844427)
11-29-2018 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
11-29-2018 12:05 PM


Re: Avoidance of the issue.
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils.

Like picking petty reasons to disregard posts with information that does explain "the evidence of the missing fossil ... " because they are not missing -- many have been found.

Message 4 gave you both an explanation of fossils before and during the cambrian period (including soft part fossils that existed before the hard parts evolved during the cambrian). AND an explanation of pre-65 million years ago (pre-dinosaur species extinction event) evolution path to primates.

Saying I haven't provided this information is not debate, it is denial. Or cognitive dissonance ...

I've stated my position and belief in the past so be my guest, repeat your mistakes from a year ago.

And you've learned nothing in the absence regarding your erroneous understanding, or about humbleness.

And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism.
"Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world"

We wanted your definition, and the onus is on you to define the terminology you use so that we talk at the same level of understanding.

... Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism. (doubtful)

Oh, we've heard it ... ad nauseum, but it's pseudo-science fantasy, not actual science. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is written to fool the gullible wanna believers. It either lies or passes on lies without compunction.

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 25 by Porkncheese, posted 11-29-2018 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

caffeine
Member
Posts: 1559
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(5)
Message 32 of 41 (844430)
11-29-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
11-29-2018 12:05 PM


Re: Avoidance of the issue.
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils.

On the contrary, you just ignored the explanations.

The oldest fossils are not from the Cambrian. They're much, much older. How much older is a matter of great dispute, since of course the earliest fossils are microbes. Distinguishing a fossil microbe from a microscopic hole in a rock is not simple. The other approach is to look for chemical byproducts of life in the rocks; but again distinguishing these from something that could be produced by some chemical process that does not involve life is not simple.

The oldest claimed fossils that would be visible with the naked eye are a little over 2,000 million years old, found in Gabon. That's about four times as old as the Cambrian explosion. What they are is not entirely clear - photos below.

It has been argued that these are also inorganic in origin. The picture above comes from an open access article making the case for them being organisms.

The fossil record long before the Cambrian is full of acritarchs - which is essentially a word made up for little fossilised microscopic balls that are clearly of organic origin. What they are is in no sense clear, and they probably aren't all the same thing. They're much less common during ice ages, and they increase dramatically around the time of the Cambrian explosion.

Now, I'm sure this is all not satisfactory to you with your curious standards of evidence, but the important question here is to ask what evidence you would expect to find of microorganisms that existed thousands of millions of years ago? I can't see any reason to expect better.

The oldest unequivocal multicellular eukaryote fossil I know of is Bangiomorpha pubescens from Canada. It's probably a red algae, meaning it's in the same phylum as the nori you wrap your sushi in. This is thought because it's extraordinary preservation means scientists can actually study its cell division - here he is under a microscope:

The time between this fossil and the Cambrian explosion is about the same as between the Cambrian explosion and now.

We of course have many pre-Cambrian fossils, some identifiable as belonging to living groups. Kimberella is clearly an animal:

but what sort of animal is not clear. It's not the oldest animal - that title currently goes to Dickinsonia, dating to about 40 million years before the Cambrian:

Of course, it's not obvious from looking at this that that's actually an animal. Scientists are mostly convinced that it is by the chemical analysis done of these fossils, which shows the presence of cholesteroids - only animals make cholesterol.

And this is a key point to bear in mind. We have many pre-Cambrian fossils. But when people say 'molluscs appeared in the Cambrian without precursors' it seems deeply confused to me. There comes a point at which fossils are clearly identifiable as molluscs. Before that time, there aren't fossils clearly identifiable as molluscs - but there are still fossils. The problem is how do you tell which one (if any) is a mollusc ancestor, and why would you expect to be able to? If there are fossils with all the key identifying features of molluscs back to the beginning of the earth then we would doubt the idea of common ancestry. Because we think molluscs share an ancestry with everything else we expect there would be a time at which you can no longer find things with all the key molluscan features.

Add to this the fact that fossils get fewer as you go back in time, and vaguer when you no longer have hard parts to identify. How do you determine what Dickinsonia was? Was it an ancestor of molluscs, of annelid worms, of arthropods? Who the smeg knows? But if the theory of evolution is correct, why would you expect this to be otherwise?

This is not to say the Cambrian explosion was not a real event - it may well have been. Explosions in diversity have happened many times - you mentioned another one. After the K-T boundary where the dinosaurs went extinct there is an explosion in diversity. Why? Because the dinosaurs (along with a bunch of other organisms) just went extinct - life diversified to fill the empty ecological niches.

But the statement that Primates suddenly appear here without precursors is odd. For starters, there aren't any primate fossils that old. There are plesiadapiformes - these are considered to be either ancestors of or close relatives to primates, so the idea primates don't have known evolutionary precursors is obviously a nonsense.

(There's a fantastic fossil of Plesiadapis in the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris in which you can see the impression of the animal's bushy tail in the rock which should go here, but I can't find a picture anywhere online).

Once you go back before the extinction of the dinosaurs, things get more complicated. But not because there aren't fossils. There are - the problem is again in figuring out which, if any, are the ancestors of primates. But of course this is the case! As you point out, the idea is that all life has a common ancestor. Once you go back far enough you hit the point where fossils no longer have the distinctive features of primates; and then how do you tell if it's the ancestor of primates, or of rodents, or of both, or of neither. Scientists have had precisely that argument (at length) about these ankle bones:

I'm not seeing any problems you've posed for the 'naturalistic theory' as of yet.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 11-29-2018 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 33 of 41 (844441)
11-30-2018 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


Could I add, Porkncheese, that the first Precambrian fossil was discovered in 1958? Here it is.

So for creationists to be talking as you do, sixty years later, means only one of two things. Either you studied paleontology prior to 1958 but have taken no interest in it since. Or, which I rather suspect, ignorance of Precambrian fossils has been handed down from generation to generation of creationists like a precious family heirloom, carefully guarded and sheltered from the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 34 of 41 (844442)
11-30-2018 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Porkncheese
11-29-2018 12:05 PM


Re: Avoidance of the issue.
Porkncheese writes:

And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism.
"Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world"

We didn't ask you for your definition of the word naturalism. We asked you what you meant with the phrase "the naturalistic theory". It's not on the internet except for in this thread.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Porkncheese, posted 11-29-2018 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 35 of 41 (844443)
11-30-2018 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


So, you answered that what you mean with "the naturalist theory" is basically the ToE. From Wiki:

Wiki writes:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5]

It would have been so helpful if you stated that from the beginning.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2018 7:06 AM Pressie has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 36 of 41 (844448)
11-30-2018 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pressie
11-30-2018 3:54 AM


"Naturalistic Theory" is ToE without gods ...
So, you answered that what you mean with "the naturalist theory" is basically the ToE. From Wiki:

Except that he specifically and explicitly adds godless and belief

Porkncheese writes:

Message 25: "Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world"

Whereas the ToE has no belief component, it is based on facts, observations, and conclusions from those facts and observations. If there is a belief component it would be that the possibility of contradictory evidence could exist, which would be exciting to find and then incorporated or develop a new theory.

Nor is the ToE implicitly or explicitly godless, it's just that science in general is no capable of using and testing supernatural laws and forces. Only their physically measurable and observable effect/s on the natural world, and thus be seen as the natural laws and forces operating on the universe, if that.

So, as I see it, when he says in the OP: "The Cambrian explosion of life has long been a major hurdle for the naturalistic theory. ... " he is implying that the absence of godliness is the problem -- IE god-of-the-gaps-did-it -- that the ToE is not sufficient.

I've talked to him (and other creationists) before about science being agnostic rather than atheistic, but they don't seem to get it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 35 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2018 3:54 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2018 7:35 AM RAZD has responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 37 of 41 (844449)
11-30-2018 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
11-30-2018 7:06 AM


Re: "Naturalistic Theory" is ToE without gods ...
So, porkncheese lied about the basics in his/her first sentence. Just another creationist. They always tell untruths. Always. Without exception.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2018 7:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2018 8:21 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 38 of 41 (844450)
11-30-2018 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Pressie
11-30-2018 7:35 AM


Re: "Naturalistic Theory" is ToE without gods ...
So, porkncheese lied about the basics in his/her first sentence. Just another creationist. They always tell untruths. Always. Without exception.

Except one that get's angry at being called one. See discussion on True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing, put on "porkncheese only posts"

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 37 by Pressie, posted 11-30-2018 7:35 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3282
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 39 of 41 (844469)
11-30-2018 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-27-2018 9:39 PM


Looks fine to me
I think that picture's pretty good to show kids.

I doubt it's presented as the final fact.
It's probably more presented as an opening idea - something that kids can digest.

Like talking to kids about gravity and using the phrase "what comes up, must come down."

Nothing wrong with that when getting started on introducing a very complex subject.

You want grade school teachers to present undergrad biology courses to kindergarten kids?
"Gather 'round, children. Take your pencils out of your nose while we look into phylogenetic classification this morning."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-27-2018 9:39 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by caffeine, posted 11-30-2018 4:34 PM Stile has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1559
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 40 of 41 (844473)
11-30-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
11-30-2018 1:49 PM


Re: Looks fine to me
I think that picture's pretty good to show kids.

It's a bit out of date. This one below is a) more in line with modern hypotheses, b) more detailed and c) available as a jigsaw puzzle, so it wins on all fronts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 11-30-2018 1:49 PM Stile has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-30-2018 5:27 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1908
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 41 of 41 (844475)
11-30-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by caffeine
11-30-2018 4:34 PM


Re: Looks fine to me
This one below is a) more in line with modern hypotheses, b) more detailed and c) available as a jigsaw puzzle, so it wins on all fronts.

Nice one. It has fossil/extinct groups also.

I also like this more detailed "tree" from evogeneao.com, they even have an interactive tree of life. And they sell tshirts, I have the dragonfly one.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by caffeine, posted 11-30-2018 4:34 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018