Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 86 (403622)
06-04-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by subbie
06-04-2007 1:41 PM


It looks at first blush like he's proposing something akin to PE, but believes that changes are even more abrupt than Gould theorized.
That was the impression that I got, too. I was going to say this on mpb's thread before it got ruled off-topic, so I'll say it here:
The fossil record shows a tremendous number of transitional fossils demonstrating macroevolution, but very few "missing links" that demonstrate microevolution -- but who cares, since creationists accept microevolution anyway?
I'm going to repeat Dr. Theobald's ape-to-human picture:
Now, if someone can accept that microevolution can produce all of the different felines from a single "cat kind" (as creationist baramology advocates), then that someone shouldn't have any trouble seeing how microevolution can proceed from one of the stages shown to the next.
What is missing in many lineages are sequences showing the slow, imperceptible gradations from one species to another predicted by the strictest model of traditional Darwinism. Punctuated Equilibrium expains why we see this pattern, and Schwartz seems to be advocating a particular mechanism for this.
However, macroevolution is clearing indicated in the fossil record. Not only do transitional forms exist in abundance that are clearly related to earlier species, but all the known species exist on the standard phylogenic tree predicted by common descent.
We see sequences of different species, A-B-...-H, where each species is clearly related to the preceding species, and where it is not a stretch to imagine microevolving from one species to the subsequent one. Yet A is clearly a different taxon from H, and indication of macroevolution. B, C, D, ..., G are all transitionals, and they all exist -- people have held them in their hands and described them.
The missing links are between A and B, between B and C, and so forth. But these missing links shouldn't pose a problem to those who accept microevolution since the differences between A and B are so small.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 06-04-2007 1:41 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 3:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 86 (405744)
06-14-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by MartinV
06-14-2007 4:29 PM


Re: It's official!
Wasn't Giordano Bruno a nut? Who was eventually whacked by the Church authorities for his heretical religious delusions?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by MartinV, posted 06-14-2007 4:29 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 86 (417085)
08-19-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Refpunk
08-19-2007 11:12 AM


I have news for you.
the DNA of mice and chicken is closer to human DNA than monkeys.
This is false.
-
ALL HUMANS AND ANIMALS HAVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN COMMON:
This, too, is false.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Refpunk, posted 08-19-2007 11:12 AM Refpunk 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