Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 58 (493810)
01-10-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-10-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
Welcome back seekingfirstthekingdom,
and my caps lock has decided to not work.
I think I can struggle through that. More separation between sentences and more paragraphs would help.
even the turtles with no shells that you posted as "proof" would need many transitional forms in order to show progression from no shell to fully shelled.
Not at "proof" but as actual evidence of reality. This fossil exists, these organisms used to exist.
And actually it was half-shelled - there was shell on the bottom but not on top. Here it is again:
Scientific American on-line "How did turtles get their shells?" (Nov 26, 2008 01:14 PM)
quote:
Ever wonder how a turtle got its shell? You're not the only one. Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have long been stumped by the question. But a recently unearthed turtle fossil, the oldest on record, may hold the answer. Researchers report in Nature today that the fossil indicates shells evolved as an extension of turtles' backbones and ribs.
Scientist have been in the dark until now because all fossilized turtles previously discovered had complete shells. But this 220 million-year-old fossil is an ancestor of the modern turtle at a stage when its shell was still evolving.
The newly discovered species sported a shelled belly and a little extra bone on its spine, supporting the theory that turtles' shells formed over eons as their backbones and ribs grew.
(color for empHAsis)
That puts it half way between no shell and shelled. That you now want fossils between no shell and this fossil, and between this fossil and modern turtles, means you are just arguing the "god of the gaps" typical creationist dodge.
that type of turtle can be easily explained away as another variety that became extinct.
Which it is, a variety that is older than all fossils of turtles with both shells, and younger than those with no shell.
I agree that it is easily explained by the evolution of turtles from no shell reptiles to fully shelled turtles. There could even be several species that lived at the same time with partial shells and only one evolved into modern turtles.
This still shows how existing parts of an organism were changed over time, generation by generation, into a new feature that did not exist before.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
Seeing as the term "kind" has no definition this means nothing.
Seeing as you have not established that any genetic boundaries exist, we are left with a reductionist interpretation that you group all life into one "kind" ... past and present.
For instance you could mean that the fossil record point to all life staying within the boundaries instituted: it all has the same DNA structure, so that is what defines "kind" ... and evolution is the process from that original creation to the present day.
To mean something different you (a) need to define what you mean by "kind" and (b) establish that some actual barrier exists that blocks mutation at a certain point.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 9:52 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 58 (493811)
01-10-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-10-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Evolution and religion/s
seekingfirstthekingdom
Ignore coyote's post, it will be deleted by moderators as this is a great debate thread.
correction.morons will believe anything.im quite happy to believe science until it comes into conflict with the bible.this is where we differ.you hold science as the ultimate authority ,i do not despite all the good(and bad) its done for mankind.
I would also recommend against using terms like morons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:00 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2009 10:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 58 (493814)
01-10-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-10-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
do you have a shorter name to use? S1tk for instance?
... the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas:
Berkeley - evolution 101:
quote:
However, these animals also have some key differences:
  • Sugar gliders live in Australia, and flying squirrels live in North America.
  • Sugar gliders have a pouch (like a kangaroo does), which provides shelter and safety for their tiny babies ” at birth, a baby sugar glider is smaller than a peanut! Flying squirrels, on the other hand, have much larger babies and no pouch.
    By studying their genes and other traits, biologists have figured out that sugar gliders and flying squirrels are probably not very closely related. Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals and flying squirrels are placental mammals.
  • From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal.
    When you look at the fossil record the ancestors of these animals are less similar than these two, so they have been evolving separately to be similar towards a common end.
    added by edit:
    The alternative is that all mammals back to the first mammal are one "kind" - thus including not only duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, koala bears and echidna, but elephants, whales, giraffes, and mole rats ... to say nothing of humans.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : abe last P

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 9:52 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-14-2009 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 34 of 58 (493817)
    01-10-2009 11:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    moving goalposts?
    S1tk (if you don't mind my using that abbreviation)
    mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious.
    ummm, no it isn't. Are therapsids mammals or reptiles? Is archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? Are dinosaurs reptiles?
    Is Tiktaalik rosea a fish or an amphibian?
    you are misrepresenting my position
    No, it is that I don't understand it. If you agree that all life shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation then we can agree that evolution exists, and that all life forms evolve.
    Then we can move on to the question/s of the descent of daughter populations from common parent populations, and where\when this pattern of common descent, with modification, first starts.
    the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right?
    What is a "cross-over" and how is the coelacanth one?
    the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record.
    Again, this is a meaningless statement without a definition of "kinds" that holds up to the evidence.
    Populations descend from previous populations, with modification as they inherit different mutations, and different ecologies select for different adaptation of organisms to the ecologies. All such populations will necessarily be of the same type\group\form\kind\etc as their parent populations. They evolve as they descend, so the descendants are different from the ancestors, but mammals don't become birds (they become bats, another example of convergent evolution).
    Even the coelacanths have evolved over the last 65 million years.
    So now we are talking about transitions rather than your amazing magic yeast? That's called moving the goalposts when you cannot answer the questions.
    added by edit:
    mammal. ...
    As noted above (after edit) this includes an extremely large and diverse group of organisms, including man. Can you tell be what kind of time period was necessary to generate this diversity?
    The first mammal (or protomammal) in the fossil record is from the transition from synapsid to therapsid:
    THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
    quote:
    Paleontologists point out that the therapsids possessed many of the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals:
    This is where the ear evolved from a single bone attached to a multi-bone jaw into a structure composed of three bones separated from a single bone jaw, characteristic of all mammals. The series of transitional fossils includes several that have two jaw joint, both the old reptile joint and the new mammal joint, while the various bones change in dimensions and positions. This restructuring was already well underway by the mid-Permian Period, some 271 to 260 million years ago. Note that therapsids predate dinosaurs
    quote:
    Dinosaurs ... from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago)
    Also see: Palaeos: Page not found
    and Palaeos: Page not found
    From an excellent interactive website that you can search up and down the evolutionary path from synapsid to modern mammal
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : added end info

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-14-2009 11:53 PM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 35 of 58 (493819)
    01-10-2009 11:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    hominids now
    continuing
    once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something.
    Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line.
    That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.
    (added by edit?)
    ill ... try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized.
    It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it.
    You also need to study "cursorial hunting"
    Persistence hunting - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Cursorial hunting is a hunting strategy practised by animals that are much slower over short distances than their quarry but have superior endurance over long distances.
    The hunters will pursue at a relatively measured pace a targeted quarry which in response will make short but high energy sprints to escape. Eventually the relentless pursuit will exhaust the quarry allowing it to be brought down by its pursuers.
    Dogs (whoops I mean wolves) use this method of hunting.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : added in response to added material

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 12:11 AM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 36 of 58 (493820)
    01-10-2009 11:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    birds now
    S1tk, do you know what the term "gish gallop" means? It means piling on a bunch of questions and assertions without answering the ones you have to answer for YOUR position to be valid.
    no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird.
    The greenish warblers are evidence of the minimal amount of evolution necessary to achieve reproductive isolation, so it was not intended to show the transition from reptile to bird. You have moved the goalposts again.
    The transition from reptile to bird first goes through the transition from reptile to dinosaurs, and then one branch of the dinosaurs, the therapods, evolves into birds (some people consider birds to be living dinosaurs).
    You do realize, don't you, that the evolution of feathers by dinosaurs is becoming increasingly well known as more and more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers are found?
    Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
    quote:
    The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.[1]
    The early feathers are symmetrical, while modern bird feathers have become asymmetrical as this slight change provides improved flight characteristics.
    Also see The Nat |
    and http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html
    or just google "feathered dinosaur"
    We now know that feathers evolved long before the first flying therapod, and only later were they adapted to flight.
    (added by edit?)
    can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird?
    Not at all what I said, the transition from reptile to bird includes ALL the dinosaurs in between.
    Here is some additional information on the transitional elements:
    Dinosauria On-Line
    quote:
    Here are 20 to get you started (characters shared with/retained from dromaeosaurids and other related theropods and dinosaurs):
    1. Tridactyl manus with manual digits IV, V lost
    2. Manual digit I robust
    3. Manual digit II longest in hand
    4. Manual digit III slender, with phalanges 3, 4 both short
    5. Semilunate carpal
    6. V-shaped furcula present
    7. Straplike scapula
    8. Functionally tridactyl pes with retroverted hallux
    9. Advanced mesotarsal ankle
    10. Splintlike metatarsal V
    11. Ascending process on astragalus
    12. Slender fibula
    13. Femur with orthogonally inturned head
    14. Perforate acetabulum
    15. Pelvis moderately opisthopubic
    16. Pubis long, rodlike with distal expansion
    17. Bladelike ilium
    18. Sacrum with at least 5 vertebrae (A. has six)
    19. Long tail, distally stiffened
    20. Jaws with teeth
    There are dozens more--I've scarcely touched the skull in this list. But you get the idea, yes?
    Shared characteristics, elements that existed in the ancestor dinosaurs and which are preserved in archeopteryx. Several (jaws with teeth) that are lost in modern birds.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : added to respond to added question
    Edited by RAZD, : added transition link and quote

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 37 of 58 (493822)
    01-10-2009 11:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    which hoaxes where?
    S1tk
    you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position?
    What?
    Again the information on Pelycodus is provided to demonstrate the evolution of the population and that speciation is recorded in the fossil record. You can find this same evidence on several different sites.
    Pelycodus: gradulastic
    (which shows two other speciation events, where the other daughter population went extinct)
    Notice that it says "[diagram after Gingerich]" and this refers to the original science journal article by Philip D. Gingerich (U of M). You can read one of his papers here
    http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/...m/2027.42/48507/2/ID358.pdf
    Are you claiming that Pelycodus speciation is a hoax?
    Or are you refering to Don Lindsay's article on the Piltdown man? Did you read the article? Do you really want to change the topic to fraud\hoaxes now?
    please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most.
    All of life. There is not one aspect of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from pre-history and archeology, from geology, physics and paleontology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record, that contradicts or challenges the theory of evolution and of the descent (with modification) of existing life-forms from the simple single cell forms that appear in the first rocks that are known to carry evidence of life, some 3.5 million years ago.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : graphic missed before
    Edited by RAZD, : added to last P

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 38 of 58 (493824)
    01-10-2009 11:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    forams and evolution
    S1tk
    i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind?
    Not really, it is just one of many pieces of information that fit evolution. Notice the near perfect continuity of fossil lineages.
    and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution.
    Take your time. You might want to read this:
    Foraminifera - Wikipedia
    and note the taxonomic classification:
    Phylum: Foraminifera
    see http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html
    for how it fits in the picture.
    for reference the phylum for humans is Chordata, animals with a spinal chord, which includes fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals ... a wide range of life forms
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : finished

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 39 of 58 (493826)
    01-11-2009 12:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    note
    note that I have added bits at the end of Message 35 and Message 36 as it appears that you added to the end of your post after I had written them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 41 of 58 (493879)
    01-11-2009 11:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 9:52 PM


    Further Evidence that there is no "genetic barrier"
    hey S1tk, hope you had a good time, and are ready to delve back into the fray.
    still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
    Another example of convergent evolution, one that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth, is the killer whale and the white shark:
    quote:
    KILLER WHALE
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    The Orca or Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), less commonly, Blackfish or Seawolf, is the largest species of the dolphin family. It is found in all the world's oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to warm, tropical seas.
    Orca are versatile and opportunistic predators. Some populations feed mostly on fish, and other populations hunt marine mammals, including sea lions, seals, walruses and even large whales. They are considered the apex predator of the marine world.
    Great white shark - Wikipedia
    quote:
    WHITE SHARK
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Chondrichthyes
    The great white shark, also known as white pointer, white shark, or white death, is an exceptionally large lamniform shark found in coastal surface waters in all major oceans. Reaching lengths of more than 6 m (20 ft) and weighing up to 2,250 kg (5,000 lb), the great white shark is arguably the world's largest known predatory fish. It is the only surviving species of its genus, Carcharodon.
    (except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...)
    It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar sharks, which are from an ancient order:
    Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... or does this make Chordata the "kind" division?
    The ultimate conclusion is - once again - that all life is of one "kind" ... as shown by the structure of DNA in all life, that there are no apparent genetic barriers that divide life into two or more groups of organisms.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : ..
    Edited by RAZD, : ,,

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 9:52 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 12:20 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 42 of 58 (493889)
    01-11-2009 1:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-10-2009 10:28 PM


    Gingrich on Pelycodus
    hey S1tk,
    I found an on-line copy of a paper by Gingrich with a review of the fossil data for pelycodus and another version of his chart:
    SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE ADAPIDAE (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) IN NORTH AMERICA
    Vol. 24, No. 22, p. 245-279 (13 text-figs.) August 15,1977
    I want to quote one particular section as it mirrors what I've said:
    quote:
    Given the pattern of phylogeny in text-fig. 10, and the details of morphological change discussed in the section of this paper on systematics, it is possible to subdivide each lineage into a sequence of valid species. Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into P. mckennai, which evolved into P. trigonodus, and SO forth. While the distinction between lineages is nonarbitrary, it must be emphasized that the exact boundary between successive species within a lineage is arbitrary (although each species as a whole can be distinguished morphologically). No natural breaks are obvious, and it is necessary for ease of discussion and for use in biostratigraphy to make essentially artificial boundaries between species. It turns out, largely for historical reasons, that these correspond fairly well with established subdivisions of the Wasatchian (Sand Coulee, lower Gray Bull, etc. - which themselves are poorly defined at present). Since the boundaries between time successive species must be time-parallel to make taxonomic diversity reflect biological diversity, the successive species of Pelycodus can potentially serve as a useful substitute in zonation of the Wasatchian, pending a full scale faunal study of this interval of evolutionary history. In this connection it is important to emphasize that the distinctions between species are based on comparisons of whole samples from each locality, and the transitions between species appear in every case to be continuous and gradual. Thus any zonation based on Pelycodus could be used, at best, to subdivide the Wasatchian into five subunits.
    (p273)
    Here's the graphic:
    quote:
    Our primary interest in studying Pelycodus and Copelemur has not been biostratigraphic zonation of the Wasatchian, but rather the patterns of phylogeny and evolution exhibited by these genera. The genealogical relationships of the species of Copelemur are still somewhat obscure, owing to the inadequate stratigraphic record of these species. The only reasonably certain relationship is the ancestor-descendant relationship of C. feretutus and C. consortutus. Within Pelycodus, on the other hand, we can be much more certain about genealogical relationships. The four species from P. ralstoni to P. abditus appear to be a single ancestor-descendant sequence, with P. abditus giving rise to both P. frugivoms and P. jarrovii.
    Always good to go to an original source, if you can.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-10-2009 10:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 47 of 58 (494269)
    01-15-2009 7:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-14-2009 11:37 PM


    Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
    Hey S1tk
    this tends to render most of your examples that you have provided rather moot.
    Denial of evidence is like that. What the evidence shows is that there is no genetic barrier to what organisms can evolve. A placental mammal can become a flying squirrel, while a marsupial can become a sugar glider; a mammal can become an orca, while a cartilaginous fish can become a white shark. You can dodge the issue or you can address it and show that there is some mechanism that actually stops evolution.
    i have a problem with.
    .1.simple lifeforms like bacteria being able to become superior lifeforms
    .2.reptiles being able to become mammals,especially reptiles becoming birds.
    .3.habilis being a link in mans ancestry.
    Curiously, the fact that you have a problem has absolutely no effect on the validity and reality of the fossil record, nor does it stop evolution as one organism evolves into another, generation by generation.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-14-2009 11:37 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 49 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 9:57 AM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 48 of 58 (494281)
    01-15-2009 8:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 44 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-14-2009 11:53 PM


    definition of transitional
    hi S1tk
    never heard of fish that can survive outside of water for periods of time?
    Yes, several kinds of fish have evolved the ability to breath air. Mud guppies for instance. However this was not true for the first fishes.
    also show me in clear fossil form how this representative of your transitional beliefs evolved from fish to land if thats what you are getting at?
    This is what makes Tiktaalik a transitional fossil (click on link to read - cannot copy text).
    This article also discusses the transitional features that exist in Tiktaalik and later tetrapods and ones that don't exist in previous fish forms.
    quote:
    First described in 2006 and quickly dubbed the “fishapod,” it had the fish-like features of a primitive jaw, fins and scales, as well as a skull, neck, ribs and parts of the limbs that are similar to tetrapods (four-legged animals).
    “The braincase, palate and gill arch skeleton of Tiktaalik have been revealed in great detail by recent fossil preparation of several specimens,” said Jason Downs, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Academy of Natural Sciences and lead author on the new study. “By revealing new details on the pattern of change in this part of the skeleton, we see that cranial features once associated with land-living animals were first adaptations for life in shallow water.”
    Fish in deep water move and feed in three-dimensional space and can easily orient their bodies in the direction of their prey. A neck, seen for the first time in the fossil record in Tiktaalik, is advantageous in settings where the body is relatively fixed, as is the case in shallow water and on land, appendages support a body planted against a substrate.
    Note that a transitional fossil is defined as one that shares characteristics with older life forms and with later life forms, and that the characteristics shared with later life forms did not exist during the time of the older life forms, while they develop further in later life forms.
    you seem to know a lot more about this "transitional" creature than scientists who have studied it and have decided to put it on a seperate branch rather than a direct ancestor between reptile and bird.
    See definition of transitional fossil above, and demonstrate how archaeopteryx does not meet these criteria.
    Next cite your sources for these scientists and what they actually say, so we know you are not citing some creationist hoax site or people that don't know what they are talking about. I suspect your sources are of a questionable nature.
    http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
    http://www.toarchive.org/...opteryx/info.html#avian-features
    http://www.toarchive.org/...teryx/info.html#reptile-features
    quote:
    Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.
    It meets the definition of transitional.
    cold blooded probably reptilian.warm blooded probably mammal.i have issues with evolutionary artistry and creative license.lets see some actual fossils please.and without step by step fossil links to prove this is a link,it becomes just another variety.
    Again, the fact that you have issues does not mean that therapsids are not transitionals showing generation by generation the adaptation of features that don't exist in reptiles and that become more and more developed in later generations.
    Your opinion does not change, alter nor affect the fossil record in any way, nor does it invalidate the transitional development of fossils in time.
    Features that did not exist in previous forms are seen developing in transitional fossils, becoming more developed in later fossils, and eventually reaching the stage of development seen in life today.
    Enjoy

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-14-2009 11:53 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 10:14 AM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 52 of 58 (494408)
    01-15-2009 7:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 45 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-15-2009 12:11 AM


    human chimp similarity is in the details
    Hey S1tk,
    i find the 95% figure misleading .to me theres a huge difference between chimps and man.
    Curiously the natural world in completely unaffected by what you "find," and what your opinion is, of the degree of difference between man and chimp.
    you ignored my example of evidence of young male pharoahs 3000 odd years old that show no sign of being more primitive.
    Because it is irrelevant, as you can go back 30,000 years to cro-magnon and find little difference to modern humans while there is detectable difference between them and neanderthals:
    Early European modern humans - Wikipedia
    quote:
    A 2003 study on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, published by an Italo-Spanish research team led by David Caramelli, concluded that Neanderthals were far outside the modern human range, while Cro-Magnons were well in the average of modern Europeans. mtDNA retrieved from two Cro-Magnon specimens was identified as Haplogroup N. [5] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and its descendant haplogroups are found among modern Eurasian and Native American populations. [6].
    Are neanderthals human or ape? (or both?) ... the DNA difference between Cro-Magnon\sapiens and neanderthal is almost the same as the difference between Cro-Magnon\sapiens and chimp ... and the difference between neanderthal and chimp (ie there are different differences to neanderthal than to chimp).
    dna similarities are due to being designed to cohabit.
    Another wild assertion not supported by the evidence. Again we look at convergent evolution:
    These guys are similar, but have quite difference DNA sequences, so their similarity is NOT due to common design elements.
    Curiously it is not just that DNA is ~95% similar, but the places similarities occur that are completely unnecessary:
    common damaged genes
    quote:
    Identical pseudogenes in apes and humans that corroborate the powerful fossil evidence.
    Primates, unlike all other mammals (with the exception of guinea pigs), cannot synthesize Vitamin C. In days long past, this led to tragic outbreaks of scurvy on seafaring voyages. Using the predictions of evolution, scientists hypothesized that the gene for vitamin C production would be found in humans as well, despite our not being able to produce it.
    Lo and behold, a GLO (ascorbic acid pseudogene) was identified in humans at exactly the same spots other mammals have functional vitamin C genes. What's more, the other great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) had an identical broken pseudogene!
    The common ancestor of apes and humans lived in a fruit-rich environment and had no need to synthesize their own vitamin C, making the loss of that gene entirely neutral. Guinea pigs also have a damaged GLO pseudogene, but the mutation that crippled it is different, as expected if it was an independent occurence.
    Other occurences of shared pseudogenes include the one coding for Urate Oxydase, which make our species vulnerable to gout, and dozens of them that code for powerful smell in other animals but are crippled in humans, but one should suffice for now.
    Observations in the area of pseudogenes that would falsify evolution include finding the same pseudogene in humans and dogs but not apes; since apes and humans share a closer ancestry than dogs and humans, any pseudogenes found in dogs and humans MUST be found in humans and apes because they belonged to the common ancestor of the latter. Hence, the theory of evolution passes this series of empirical experiments as well.
    Care to discuss the design that copies the failure to produce vitamin C is due to exactly the same damage in exactly the same DNA sequence in chimps and humans? Care to discuss the design that includes a damaged copy of a gene that is functional in other mammals, related by more distant common ancestors?
    Why does your designer copy something that doesn't work?
    interesting strategy.you are using chimp behaviour to justify that habilis isnt a chimp.chimps use stone tools as well according to jane goodall.
    Some scientists think chimps should be included as a hominid.
    except you would need a lot of 3.5 foot high small brained chimps to take anything down.how many fossils of handyman have been found in the area again?
    Again this is just your opinion, and irrelevant. Number of fossils does not equal the number of organisms related to the fossil.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 45 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 12:11 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 53 of 58 (494411)
    01-15-2009 8:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by seekingfirstthekingdom
    01-15-2009 9:57 AM


    convergent evolution means no "genetic boundary" to evolution
    hey S1tk
    whats this got to do with what i specifically asked for regarding reptile to mammal?
    Let's not start playing games now. You can very easily track the posts back to Message 21 and your claim that
    still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
    Convergent evolution invalidates that concept, as you see completely different lineages converging on the same form.
    With the flying squirrels and sugar gliders, one is a placental mammal and the other is a marsupial.
    With the orcas and the white sharks, one is a mammal and one is a cartilaginous fish.
    For these forms to be limited to one "kind" by some mystical "genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis" means that these organisms must be of the same "kind" ... or such convergence would be blocked.
    secondly give me time to research your claims regarding how closely related the shark and orca actually are.its so glaringly obvious to me there are barriers inbetween reptiles and mammals.surely you must know this.
    What I know is that the difference between shark and orca should be even MORE "glaringly obvious" to you than the difference between reptile and mammal.
    not to the extent you are claiming.the reality is you are taking tenuous examples,ignoring the obvious and attempting to put pieces where they dont fit.theres nothing in the natural world that backs you up.nothing.
    Yes, denial is like that. Curiously denial does not mean that you have shown that the examples are tenuous, or that they are put in the "wrong" place, so we just have your opinion.
    On the other hand you could attempt to show how a genetic barrier would work, and then we can look to see if that in fact is supported by the evidence.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-15-2009 9:57 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has 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