|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5281 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Good point on species versus larger taxanomic groups, but I think you ignore the point that without seeing more transitions on the species level, the theorized transitionals between the larger groups is somewhat questionable.
As an analogy, you can find look-alikes that are not related, but if you were to look at a large group of people, and spread them out over time, you'd make mistakes of putting people together as related, and thus creating "transitionals" when they do not exist. Of course, your response might be we could do genetic testing, and admittedly genetic research is some of the strongest evidence of evolution, but it does not negate the thorny problem, which many evos want to hide from, that the fossil record is grossly inconsistent with current evo models. It's a real problem, and evos hide from it by alternately refusing to deal with the fossil record in toto, and just come up with a paltry few potential "transitionals between major taxon" as if that can explain away the lack of data, and really the examples are not convincing. They often deal with just a bare few features, which could just be similarities in design or convergent evolution. It's only if you believe evolution had to have occurred does it seem to make sense. You really have to add faith into the equation. If you go on reason and skepticism, it doesn't add up at all, so much so that after awhile you cannot accept the explaining away of the fossil record. It is hard data that, imo, pretty much disproves current evo models. The other approach evos have started taking is to say the fossil record is not really necessary one way or the other for us to be confident in ToE. I realize you believe what you do, but I am speaking honestly here, and so are many who doubt ToE. It's not irrationality to reject ToE. It's taking an objective view to start with, and asking if the fossil data as a whole really works with the idea species only originate via mutation, variation and natural selection over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Not going to get a POTM out of me, but your message does seem to be an improvement relative to many of your efforts. I will remind you and the others that the core topic theme is "Punctuated equilibrium", and that all messages should have some connection to that theme.
I know that you're in the position of being the one against the many, but might I dare suggest you strive to post fewer but better messages? "Fewer but better" would also be a good thing for the other members. Any replies to this message should go to the "General Discussion.." topic, link below. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well I reject most of your accusations against "evos". Nor do I accpet your opinion of the fossil record - it may not be as complete as we would like, but it still strongly endorses evolutio.
Your argument essentially reduces all the major transitionals to coincidence - but it has to be asked why these strange coincidences are so strongly consistent with evolutionary theory. Is it really reasonable to put down the fossils illustrating the development of the mammalian jaw structure down to coincidence ? And if it were a coincidence why would it appear at the right period in the fossil record ? Quite frankly I would say that it is your argument that doesn't take the full fossil record into account.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I don't credit anything to coincidence actually. PE was put forth to solve some serious problems in the lack of understanding within the evo community on what the fossil record shows and does not show. That lack of understanding is still often present imo, and the reason imo is that evos like to say what they believe the evidence says without closely looking at the evidence to see whether the data really says what they claim or not. In other words, they believe so strongly in ToE that they assume all the data agrees already and go as far as to include erroneous factual claims in teaching materials because they think, hey, this must be so.
What I try to do here is go over the pieces of data without trying to mold the data into an overall theory and see what it says without built-in assumptions. I think if you and others would do that as well, you would see what I am talking about. Let's take jaws and teeth which are used prominently in evo models. Across a wide range, many creatures eat very similar things in terms of texture, hardness, etc,...A meat eater on one continent may eat a different animal, but it's still meat, and the same with plant eaters. There are some differences of course, but there is a strong commonality. Imo, this strong commonality can explain what you call "coincidences" or common decent. For example, it could be just that similar designs are in place for the jaw for some reptiles and mammals, not that one evolved from the other. Another viable explanation, something evos claim in other areas, would be convergent evolution, that after many years, reptiles evolved slightly different jaw structures because those jaw structures were better for eating meat, plants or whatever. This is the same for teeth. If a land mammal has similar teeth to a whale, there is no reason to think the land mammal is in the evolutionary line of the whale. It is just as likely that the teeth evolve into a form independently due to natural selection based on functionality and possibly similarity of diet in form and texture. Additionally, they could just be created or designed that way. To claim the data indicates solely common descent is inaccurate and not in concordance with a more measured, objective, scientific perspective based on facts, not wishful thinking. If you look very closely at the much vaunted claims of reptile to mammals, you see a lot of claims based on faulty assumptions. Within mammals, many evos are now saying the ear and inner bones evolved independently, and they say this because the evidence is against mutual common descent passing these traits on. Well, another explanation could just be they were created differently, but regardless of that, if we believe such detailed similarities can arise independently, then it is wrong to claim data showing similarity in other areas means creatures evolved from one to the other. The similarities evos claim can only mean reptiles evolved into mammals can just as rationally and easily be explained in other ways, which are more consistent with the fossil record I might add. In other words, evo models are based on overstatements and artificially twisting the data to only mean one thing. This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 04:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well if you aren't attributing the fact that we do have good intermediates which turn up at the right sort of position in the fossil record to coincidence, how do you explain it ?
"Commonality" doesn't work because it doesn't deal with the time factor - which leaves the timng down to coincidence. Nor does it really explain why we should have intermediate structures - especially not intermediates with the "double hinge" structure evolution would need to make the transition. Commonalities explain functional similarities - like the similar shape of sharks, icthyosaurs and dolphins but not the intermediates actually found. You say you can explain the intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian jaw - well lets' see you do it. Offer a real explanation for why we see the double hinge structure and why it appears at the right point in the fossil record. And you are still wrong about PE. PE didn't show up problems in evolution - only a problem in paleontology - a problem that was solved by using up to date evolutionary theory. ”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think you are wrong on PE. PE did not change paleontology. It was an attempt to fit evolutionary models into the fossil evidence.
I also think I already answered you on the double-hinge. It is functional in design, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It was an attempt to fit evolutionary models into the fossil evidence. Yeah, because changing our models in the light of evidence is bad, right? You need to stop applying religious thinking to science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well you are wrong on both counts.
Eldredge and Gould explicitly state that they are applying existing evolutionary theory to the question of the fossil record. There's no mention of any genuine evolutionary model underlying the view that they oppose. And no you haven't expalined why the double hinge jaw should happen to appear at the time it would have to if the mammalian jaw evolved from the reptilian model. Or really why it should appear at all. Is it just a big coincidence ?i
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Randman,
As an analogy, you can find look-alikes that are not related, but if you were to look at a large group of people, and spread them out over time, you'd make mistakes of putting people together as related, and thus creating "transitionals" when they do not exist. You have made a similar remark before, regarding being able to line up extant species as transitionals. Cladistic analyses basically lines up forms "in order", as if evolution had taken place. So, if the transitional form is an illusion, then why do cladistic nodes (the taxon) match relative statigraphic positioning as well as it does? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The answer could be the "lining up" is unreliable as scientists have been persuaded, as is endemic in ToE in the past, to essentially interpret data according to the existing paradigm and leave out data that does not fit, creating a self-fulfilling illusions. Personally, I think there is a good bit of this going on, and I base that on other areas where evos clung to false ideas for decades despite criticism and then finally lamented here and there.
The other possibility is that some sort of progressive creation or ID-type of evolution is taking place so you see something causing species to appear, either via evolution or via creation, in a manner that leaves no fossil record of the transitions developing. Actually, a third possibility is somewhat metaphysical and without getting into too much detail could entail the past, present and future being influenced by the questions we ask of it, and that things, even the past, are not set in stone as we think. John Wheeler, a noted physicist, has suggested that the universe is "participatory" based on his work as a physicist and quantum physics, and thus suggests what we observe in the universe is partly the result of "the questions we ask of it" and thus our state of mind. It is not purely a metaphysical concept. Anton Zellinger takes this a little further and proposes the reason we see the physical universe as quantized is because information is quantized and uses that hypothesis to explain the curious behaviour of the quantum world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
It was an attempt to fit evolutionary models into the fossil evidence. G&E specifically attempted to conflate changes in the tempo of evolution with speciation. Although logically sound & eminently reasonable in & of itself, I'm not aware of any evidence that this has ever been demonstrated via the fossil record. G&E's formulation of PE is often confused with changes in the tempo of evolution for any reason, often called "weak PE". Weak PE was first nodded at by the master himself, Charles Darwin, & more fully by Myer in the 1940's. Weak PE also has the advantage of evidence. Given that the issue in question is not whether evolutionary rate changes are tied up with speciation, or not, but whether they occur at all. Then G&E's formulation of PE is irrelevant to the discussion with creationists. Evolutionary rate changes occur, the evidence is in the fossil record. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Randman,
The answer could be the "lining up" is unreliable as scientists have been persuaded, as is endemic in ToE in the past, to essentially interpret data according to the existing paradigm and leave out data that does not fit, creating a self-fulfilling illusions. A complete non-answer, a great example of an Ad hoc argument. You need to show that the lining up is actually unreliable in order to make a logical argument. Moreover, the "lining up" is not an artifact of human subjectivity, it is an artifact of the principle of parsimony, that's the point. To do away with the old Linnaean method of classification by introducing an objective method. So no-go there. I think atoms are actually solid rather than mostly space, I've often suspected the data is unreliable. As for your "existing paradigm" argument. How can cladistics matching stratigraphy as it does be informed by whatever paradigm is fashionable, or "in"? The correlation is an expectation of evolutionary theory & is therefore evidence of it, regardless of whether Biblical Creation, The Squiggly Spaghetti Monster, or Norse Mythology are the reigning paradigms, or not. And what data has been left out? Another Ad hoc?
Personally, I think there is a good bit of this going on, and I base that on other areas where evos clung to false ideas for decades despite criticism and then finally lamented here and there. No-one gives a Great Ape for your personal delusions of conspiracy. The FACT is that cladistics & stratigraphy match better than they ought to if evolution hadn't occurred. It is not a "false idea", it is a fact.
The other possibility is that some sort of progressive creation or ID-type of evolution is taking place so you see something causing species to appear, either via evolution or via creation, in a manner that leaves no fossil record of the transitions developing. Ah, so the fossil record contradicts the bible, then? But you finally concede that stratigraphy & cladistics matching is evidence of evolution. Why did it take so long? Your third explanation is post-modernist nonsense. We see quantised energy because it is quantised, obviously. It is not beyond our ability to concieve non-quantised energy, nor is it beyond our ability to conceive a scenario where stratigraphy & cladistics show no statistical correlation. But it does. If your complaint were true, then no contradicting data would ever be found for any scientific theory, & evil spirits would still cause disease. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 11-17-2005 04:34 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hi mark24:
Hey, was it you that a while back, in some other thread, posted a wonderful explanation on how cladistics work (if that was you, it was a great post...if it was not you; it was still a great post)? Perhaps randman would benefit from such a post, because it seems rather obvious (to me at least) that along with just about every other scientific concept, he has no knowledge whatsoever about the true power behind cladistics as a tool in support of the ToE. I'm pretty much convinced that he has never even seen a cladogram (or perhaps it would be better to say that if he has seen one, he had no idea what it was, let alone how to interpret it).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ah, so the fossil record contradicts the bible, then? The hallmark of evolutionist delusions and failures, when all else fails, attack the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Your third explanation is post-modernist nonsense. Nah, John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger are not post-modernists, and unlike evos, back up their claims with hard experiments in the lab.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024