You are confusing with absence of evidence with evidence for absence, a logical fallacy.
I don't understand how you could interpret this as a logic fallacy. Its almost as if you're acting like a lack of corroborating evidence is some kind of circular reasoning on my part. Let me ask you, what jury would convict anyone without any evidence? What evidence for absence exists? From everyone's logical standpoint, we see a lack of evidence to support an assertion.
Contradicted by fact. We see gradual change in all living creatures. We see gradual change in many fossil records.
Do you see gradual change because you want to see a gradual change, or is there actual evidence for said gradations? Evolutionary theory has always predicted that innumerable transitional forms would be found, and yet, all that has been presented is a handful of debatable forms. For this reason, Gould and Eldridge had to put their thinking caps on and brainstorm. What they came up with, was punctuated equilibrium - an assertion even in their own eyes.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/...ssictexts/eldredge.pdf
The following is actually from B16: The History of Life: Source Book --Admin
"As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).
In a strictly logical sense, this negative explanation worked and preserved gradualism, then falsely equated with evolution itself, amidst an astonishing lack of evidence for this putative main signal of Darwinism. But think of the practical or heuristic dilemma for working paleontologists: if evolution meant gradualism, and imperfection precluded the observation of such steady change, then scientists could not access the very phenomenon that both motivated their interest and built life's history. As young, committed and ambitious parents, we therefore proposed punctuated equilibrium, hoping to validate our profession's primary data as signal rather than void. We realized that a standard biological account. Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations... Given these stringent requirements, and in the light of such an imperfect fossil record, we are delighted that so many cases have been well documented, particularly in the crucial requirement of ancestral survival after punctuated branching." -Stephen J. Gould
"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography."
Punctuated Equilibria
Here's my question: Why, after so many evolutionists have conceded that the fossil record is pathetically incomplete, do so many people in here still insist on telling me that it isn't so? And if it is this incomplete, and parts are missing, then what evidence is there that these creatures are inter-related to begin with, if no immediate evidence is available? Its an assertion. And for however much sense it may or may not make sense, theoretically, it is strictly another part of
theoretical biology, awaiting the seal of approval.
This is false (a) because your premise (above) is false, it is false
Its false because its false? As fascinating as that statement is, it is tantalyzingly incomplete, as is the evidence for macroevolution.
(b) because probability has no way to restrict a possibility from happening, math is not the reality, a mathematical model does not make hurricanes go away that don't match the model, and it is false
So, because anything
could happen, we should just take the theory on the basis of face value without any corroborating evidence? Listen, the evidence is overwhelmingly
not in favor of macroevolution. And the evidence of such is within its lack to formulate a cogent argument for itself. So far, I've recieved nothing but conflicting views from the people on EvC. Some appear to be gradualists and others appear to be in favor of punctuated equilibira. With both parties, I've been expected to take their arguments, however weak and repetitious it might be, on the basis of conjecture. What's worse, they don't even realize that their conclusions differ greatly from their
buddies conclusion, yet they claim parity.
(c) because you are reaching a conclusion not based on your premises, containing elements not in your premises and thus not shown to be valid.
What does that mean? I've reached a conclusion not based on my own premises, containing elements not in my premises, and thus shown to be invalid? I'm sorry but could you clarify exactly what that means?
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is really what the theory is about. Based on that one theory you can make a bunch of predictions, but these are not "assertions" of the theory, just predictions that will be true if the theory is true.
At what point is the prediction going to materialize??? At what point does biological prophecy become an actuality?
Things change, therefore evolution is real, unfortunatley is the extent of the argument. And even after multiple case studies of attempting to tweak genes to cause a macroevolutionary process in a pristine lab has come up null and void. If we can't even manipulate nature to present the argument, then how long are we going to have to wait for nature to spit out some legitimate evidence? Cripes, we've been waiting for for like a 137 years to seal the deal, but the evolutionary model is just as impotent and anemic now as it was 137 years ago. Even if you say that evolution takes thousands and millions of years, you would be forgetting that by odds alone, at least 10 species should be experiencing a genuine transition.
There is a fallacy common to people who are philosophically opposed to evolution to make it into something it is not - this is called a strawman fallacy - and usually this entails turning evolution into some Grand Unified Theory of Everything. It isn't.
Its no mystery that adherents to evolution predominantely come from atheistic circles. Forgive me for generalizing and making the inferrence that the two are married. Take a concensus and see how many evolutionst are athiests and I'm pretty certain that a very low percentage is theistic in any way.
You can accuse me of "gross oversimplification" all you want, but your simplifications are contradicted by facts. That shows that you have oversimplified to the point of being false, like "all plants are green" when some use red chlorophyll instead of green.
"Things change, therefore evolution is a fact" is not an argument in support of evolution. You disagree that its a gross over-simplification? Providing red chlorophyll in the stead of the typical, green chloroplasts is providing some basis. This is the kind of specifics I would expect in order to presenting a case for evolution.
Now when and how does that evolution stop occurring? What prevents the continued evolution of distinct features that are not seen in ancestral populations in later generations of isolated populations?
Changes within the genome do happen, and I suspect, will always happen until the end. But first of all, evolutionary theory tactily asserts that an incline progression exists, while I think its the opposite. In other words, a loss of information is far more prevelant the cause of such gradations, because most mustations are either neutral or injurious. I think you could agree that most point mutations act adversely to most wild phenotypes.
What stops this occurring when the isolated population now meets and interacts in competition with other isolated populations from the same ancestral population where one or both have evolved distinct features and either
And when this intermingling occurs, another branch will occur in that particular specie to create yet another subspecie. It happens all the time. And what we have is just another kind of dog, or cat, or horse, or whatever. But always, always, always, its still perfectly canine, feline, and equine. Do you disagree? Are there any instances where an entirely new genus has spawned from another?
What stops "micro" evolution from becoming "macro" evolution, especially when the distinction is one of human imposition?
There is a gulf affixed between the classes that are seemingly inpenetrable. We have tried very hard to create functional chimeras, by splicing DNA segments together. But there is a 'wall' that any organism will hit. Nobody knows how many potential sequences exist, and there is probably an inconconveibly great number of variables. Nonetheless, the only place we find these transitions are in sci-fi novels. Would it be cool if did? Yeah! But, we've never witnessed (which is a critical step in assigning something as empirical science) these necessary gradations to lead to a transspecific evolution.
Do you know of any individual that does not have a common ancestor with their cousins?
Humans are related to humans, chimps are related to chimps, dogs are related to dogs, snails are related to snails. There is zero evidence to support that man an amoeba share a common ancestor.
Do you know of any reason why this cannot be extended to a common ancestor between species, especially when this has been an observed fact? Do you know of any reason why this cannot be extended back to earlier ancestors of species that share a common trait? Do you know of any reason why this cannot be extended back to any earlier ancestors of species that share a common genetic marker?
Yes. Most major organs in the body couldn't possibly have derrived, little by little. In other words, a partial eye serves no function without all of its contrivances in place from the inception. Something Archaeopteryx's feathers and wings would have served no concievable relevance to its survival for it to inexplicably create wings. How would a partial wing, such as a nub, increase its survivability in the wild as it was changing from forelimb to wing? Wouldn't all signs point to the fact that it would inhibit its survival, not enhace its chances?
Or they may experience a gain in new alleles, and so gain certain characteristics that are generally not seen in larger, ancestral populations. Refusing to deal with all the evidence does not make it go away.
Because it often acts detrimentally. It is hypothetically a possible determinant of such an evolution, but often times, gaining one function causes the loss of another. Here is one example of such.
shortened link
Logical fallacy, argument from incredulity and ignorance again. Just because {YOU} do not see any way for a dog or a cat or any other species group to evolve into something new does not prevent it from happening. Just because {YOU} do not see anything but enormous gaps does not mean that many small steps have crossed those gaps in the past and will continue to cross those gaps in the future.
Its not that I can't concieve of it, its that I've never seen it!!! And since there is an awful lot of procreation going on in the last 137 years, the stark fact that we've never seen any of these theoretical things you speak of, closes the realm of possibility. Just because (YOU) want to believe that because there homilogical similarites doesn't mean that it spawned from a common ancestor. That's more than a strawman; that's the king of the scarecrows.
Dude, how long is this post?
Just what do you think you should see? A half-way this half-way that fossil? You've already admitted that this happens:
No, that's an over-simplification. I don't expect that. I don't even expect tenth percentile. If avian are the progeny of saurian lineage, I expect to see another transition along these lines. I'm not asking for a Hopeful Monster, I'm just asking for an obvious transition that we can clearly identify.
Your birds with the new feature are half-way to something else from the original population.
I wouldn't call a bird with an orange blaze on its beak, where the ancestral populace has a yellowish beak a revolutionary breakthrough.
Typical ignoring of the rest of the equation. The process is mutation and selection. Mendel's genetics only dealt with selection and not newly mutated features. They do show that once newly developed "distinct features" (per your birds) have evolved by the process of mutation that they continue to operate by the rules of Mendel's genetics.
There are exceptions to Mendellian law, however, those exceptions are almost always injurious. Aside from which, natural selection should remove most mutations, simply by the virtue that that so many act adversely. As I stated elsewhere, how would Archeaopteryx stave off annhilation? How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? Think about it. The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this animal have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. And we could expect the same for all of the rest.
One day? A large taxonomical jump will occur??? ROFLOL. How much change and how fast do you think this takes?
I wonder that all the time. I can never get a clear answer. And when they commit to an answer they like, that fits preconcieved notions about the geologic column, they change the empirical dating methods to fit the newer model.
Do you understand that taxons are just human constructs? They are patterns imposed by classification of organisms into different groups for the purpose of comparison of similar and distinct features, and anything and everything above species isolation is just an intellectual human construct.
Yes, I realize that it is a human construct, which is why I don't place too much stock in it. I appreciate the classifications, but the arrival of the conclusion that they are related because of similarities means little to me. A Toyota Tundra looks more related to a Ford F-150 because they are both pick-ups But in reality, the Tundra is more related to the Tercell and the F-150 more related to the Focus. (Before you ask, no, cars and trucks don't procreate). I'm just using it as a referrence on how 'looks' don't constitute lineage. For instance, my parents were looking at a magazine when they stumbled on a model for a Guess add. This kid looked exactly like me. It was really freaky. He could've easily passed for my twin. And in jest, I showed a couple and they asked me when I was doing headshots. The point is, he looked like me but was not anywhere in my immmediate lineage. It was purely coincidental. I feel the same about human and simian lineage.
Do you know what PunkEek (punctuated equilibrium) is? How does this cause people to turn away from a "phylogenic" tree, when it in no way contradicts a typically derived tree of species relationships? It looks to me more like you are "shocked" that some strawman (or misunderstanding) of yours doesn't fit the real picture.
How many quotes from the inventors of the theory do I need to pull up to obliterate the typical, textbook case of Darwinian gradualism? Punk eek was 'invented' to cover the lack of transitional forms. Its really that simple. Instead of a stepwise evolution, PE teaches us that we should expect long periods of stasis coupled with rapid bursts of change, thus invalidating the need for a step-by-step evolutionary model.
Genetic markers are errors in non-coding sections of DNA; they do not affect the growth, survivability or sexual selection of the individual, and so are not subject to natural selection for or against their being in the section. These same patterns are found in the same sections of non-coding genes in other people, in closely related species, and in distantly related species, with the number of such markers varying with the distance from the (respective) common ancestor. We share more {common to all human} genetic markers with chimpanzees than we do with gorillas, and the ones we share with chimps and gorillas are more than the ones we share with monkeys, and the ones we share with chimps and gorillas and monkeys are more than we share with lions, and tigers and bears (oh my).
That's because so much of it has to do with the anatomical similarities. Whenever one organism has a similar structure with another, we should expect to see genetic similarites. But again, for that to be used as some sort of basis of lineage is only based on suppositions. We would expect to see a Jaguar and a Lion to have a similar sequence. Aside from which, the percentage we've all come to know is misleading.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...4_020924_dnachimp.html
Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More.
| Answers in Genesis
All PunkEek says is that there are mechanism where evolution can occur in small isolated pockets and the resultant species can then sweep into a much larger geographical area due to superior adaption developed in isolation. The fossil record shows the "sudden" sweep, but finding the isolated pockets is not always guaranteed.
The following is from B16: The History of Life: Source Book -- Admin
If punctuated equilibrium has provoked a shift in paradigms for macroevolutionary theory (see ref. 35 for a defence of this view), the main insight for revision holds that all substantial evolutionary change must be reconceived as higher-level sorting based on differential success of certain kinds of stable species, rather than as progressive transformation within lineages (see Eldredge 36 on taxic versus transformational views of evolution; Simpson 37, however, in the canonical paleontological statement of the generation before punctuated equilibrium, had attributed 90% of macroevolution to the transformational mode, and only 10%. to speciation). Figure 1, our original diagram of punctuated equilibrium, shows how a trend may be produced by differential success of certain species without directional change in any species following its origin.
Darwin's theory of natural selection locates the causality of evolutionary change at one domain on one level: natural selection operating by struggle among individual organisms for reproductive success. Given Darwin's crucial reliance upon lyellian uniformity for extrapolating this mode of change to encompass all magnitudes through all times, the interposition of a level for sorting among stable species breaks this causal reduction and truly, in Stanley's felicitous term 38, "decouples" macro- from microevolution. Decoupling is not a claim for the falseness or irrelevancy of microevolutionary mechanisms, especially natural selection, but a recognition that Darwinian extrapolation cannot fully explain large-scale change in the history of life.
Allow me to paraphrase through all of the fluff. Whenever there is any evidence that would lend credence to a macroevolutionary process, we shall recognize it. However, whenever evidence is scant, its because organisms that have optimal suitability to the enviornment and experience long periods of stasis.
What is it all based upon?
Some of these are being found as scientists look specifically for such locations. We saw the recent articles about the fish on legs find where the scientists looked for specific environments where such a transition was predicted to have occurred based on the fossil evidence. And, by gosh, they found one. They found several, in fact.
Are you referring to the Tiktaalik Roseae? I only ask because evolutionists thought the Coelacanth were fish that experimented with walking because its anatomical makeup of its fins. As it turns out, the Coelacanth do nothing remotely akin to any type of 'walking.'
Furthermore we have evidence here in the USA of just how such a mechanism works. There have been several species "introduced" to North America by people. One such is the starling, a bird that is generally considered a pest on both sides of the Atlantic, but which was imported in a small group so that all the species mentioned in Shakespeare could be found here. From that initial population of some 50 birds, the population spread to cover North America in 50 years. Track that in the fossil record.
I'm not sure what this has to do with evolution. Can you elaborate?
Another logical fallacy if not a contradiction. Disproving "macro"evolution does not prove by default any special creation, but (by ignoring the evidence for evolution in general) we can assume some creative force or cognizance in spite of the total lack of any evidence for it based on what we DON'T know? LOL.
There is no direct evidence of God and I don't pretend, unlike my counterparts concerning their theory, that such direct evidence does exist. But perhaps I will provide all the positive evidence of a Creator in one of the ID rooms.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : spelling
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminJar, : shortened long link to correct pagewidth
.
™ Version 4.2