|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species. Did you read the fucking abstract? Just curious, as the article does state that it went from a unicellular organism to a colonial one. That's a pretty drastic change. As a matter of fact, not only did it change into a drastically different species, but a drastically different family, as well, as this summary of the same experiment shows:
quote: How you came to the conclusion that this isn't drastic change is simply mind-boggling, assuming you even read the citation.
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. I don't have to have every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to see if it matches the picture on the box, STA. Moreover the expectation that evolution must be "proved" is contrary to the scientific methodology; we're simply saying that evolution is supported by so much evidence that we've provisionally accepted it as the most likely explanation, not that it has been "proved." "Proof" is for alcohol and algebra. It's not what we do in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The definition of a species is too vague.. In the case of asexually reproducing organisms, it's possible that the Biological Species concept isn't appropriate. But for sexual species, the BSC is more than appropriate, and there's certainly nothing vague about "a reproducive community." The fact that it's often hard, however, to pin down exactly where one species ends and another starts is exactly what we would expect if evolution was true.
IN the animal kingdom even a small change and it is defined as a different species.There seems to be no general rule.. No, the rule is very clear and very general - "did reproducive isolation occur?"
Hell, if you go by that 'don't mate with each other rule' then we are to assume that hundreds of years ago negroes and caucasions were different species but now they are because they mate with each other? Had their geographical isolation proceeded for much, much longer than it did, we might very well say that they were different species. You need to stop thinking of species in the Platonic way - where individuals are variations of some abstract species template - and percieve the reality - what we think of as "species" are really more-or-less discreet gene pools.
Is is false , a lie? It's certainly full of fallacious reasoning, if that's what you mean. I noted a number of instances where they claimed no new species was formed because there was no major adaptive mutation. The problem is, that's not how evolution says new species form. Did reproductive isolation occur in each of those cases? Indeed it did. Therefore each of those is, in fact, a speciation event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To clarify my point - most of what evolutionary theory proves is changes that occur in population that already HAD a specific trait in their genetic makeup. That's only half of evolutionary theory - the half called "natural selection." Don't forget about the other half, the half that explains the source of new genetic traits - random mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case. Ok, but what would that fossil record look like besides a temporally-organized sequence of discreet but continuous morphologies? In other words, the reason that we're so sure that we have a fossil record of evolutionary change is because the fossils are arranged exactly how we would expect if our hypotheses about genetic ancestry of organisms were correct. If you want to see fossils evolving, how on earth would that make sense? Fossils are dead, RB. They don't change.
fossils of the past can be made to have any interpretation. Not when they're found already organized in almost precisely the way we would expect if our proposed genetic lineages were correct. There's only one interpretation of that degree of convergence between stratiography and cladistics - that both straiography and cladistics are describing the same sequence; the evolutionary ancestry of Earth's species.
If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds. They do, though. Almost every species is a transitional form, just like you're the transitional form between the unique morphology of your parents and that of your children.
Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions. Well, the only thing they've "admitted" is how poorly people like you understand Punctuated Equilibrium:
quote: from Punctuated Equilibria Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory based on the gaps in the fossil record; it's based on the positive evidence collected from a number of studies in population genetics. That it happens to explain why there are so many transitional fossils between major taxa but so few at the inter-species level is just a side benefit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong Well, you would be. The most obvious difference is that shark tails are vertical in orientation, like fish; while cetacean tails are of horizontal orientation. Cetacean tails are bilaterally symmetrical; shark tails are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it). That would be a false statement which I had already refuted in my post. It's against the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here. Please go back and address my post if you wish to continue making this claim.
Darwin travelled the world looking at data and then came up with a idea. Right, which is how we know that there's no "interpretation" of the data involved - the data clearly led Darwin to the conclusion of evolution, not the other way around. But, Darwin didn't have all the data. The new data we've found since Darwin's time confirms predictions made by his theory. You might contrast Darwin's method with what creationists do - Darwin examined the data and dervied a testable conclusion. Creationists start with an untestable conclusion and cherry-pick the data to fit. Oh, and you still didn't answer my question - if evolution were true, how would the fossil record be different from what we have; a record of the remains of species organized by time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution.... I observe evolution about as often as I observe gravity, so you're pretty wrong about this. Unless you're choosing not to see all the evolutiong going on..
It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine.. Could you go to pubmed.org, search for any scientific paper on evolution, and point out the anti-christian content please? Moreover how can it be "anti-christian" when evolution is affirmed by so many of the major Christian denominations? Do you really think the Catholics are all secret atheists or something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". I'm sorry, but I refuted this claim. It's in violation of the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here.
Unless my thinking is wrong somewhere. If you're thinking that PE and gradualism are mutually exclusive, then your thinking is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But, it would help immensely .. would it not? Actually, it wouldn't. if fossilization were so common that entire, complete lineages were likely to be preserved - if there were an abundance of them for every species - then it would probably be evidence against evolutionary timescales, not evidence for the theory. You're asking for something that the reality of fossilization makes unlikely. That said, a number of lineages have apparently been presented to you, only to have them dismissed by you. So what, exactly, would you accept as a complete lineage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, I think everyone knows by now that the case for macro-evolution is not very well supported. Here's 29 evidences for macro-evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent No species evolved to from an entire other group of species. No, this has happened hundreds of times under observations, and countless billions of times throughout the history of life. After all, why wouldn't it? All it takes is reproductive isolation to form new species. But you don't have to take my word for it:
Observed Instances of Speciation No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html I would like someone to show me clear evidence of one species transitioning into another with clear stages of skeletal development etc. Skeletal development has nothing to do with new species. Skeletons can change within species. You only get a new species when reproductive isolation occurs. New species have nothing to do with morphological change; significant morphological change can occur within species.
But at this point I really am not convinced that macro evolution took place. Certainly not as you've defined it, no. Nonetheless, all species past and present are the decendants of a common ancestor. This is the conclusion of a vast weight of evidence and is simply not refutable from what we know now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your classifications are not the way it is in the real world. No classification is the way it is in the real world, because all classifications are artifical groupings. Even species, when you think about it. To an organism, there's the individuals around them that they could mate with, and then there's everything else they can't. That's all the classification that exists in the natural world; trying to determine if the organism could mate with another individual over the next hill is artifical, human classification again. "Reptile" and "mammal" are just words we use for artifical, arbitrary groupings of animals; we might base those groupings on an arbitrary selection of physical characteristics but there's nothing inherently "mammal" or "reptile" or whatever about any organism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024