|
Author
|
Topic: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 16 of 88 (69941)
11-29-2003 8:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 8:01 PM
|
|
How about this, I will remove my 1% idea since really it is just a lame defense at another lame defense. Lets focus on the similarities and try to see if we can come to a conclusion of the fossil record showing relatedness instead of similarities or does the fossil record just report similarites?. Thank You Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 8:01 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:22 PM | | Sonic has not replied | | | Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:38 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 88 (69944)
11-29-2003 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-29-2003 5:55 PM
|
|
quote:
Every fossil is a transitional, if you look at it correctly.
Eh, yah, but how about some billions more of the macros to balance out the micros? 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2003 5:55 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:24 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 18 of 88 (69946)
11-29-2003 8:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:04 PM
|
|
NosyNed writes: Ok, Sonic. Let's back up a little. (all times below are very approximate, the exact times don't matter) At 1 billion years (1 Gyr) and older there was no mulitcellular life that we have found fossils for. At 500 Myrs ago we have a range of different creatures that have fossilized, but we have no true fishes, no amphibians, no reptiles, no birda and no mammals. At about 350 Myrs we have fish, no amhpibians, no etc. At somewhere around 300 Mys ago we have amphibians, no reptiles etc. At somewhere around 250 Myrs ago we have reptiles, no dinosaurs. At about 200 Myrs ago we have mammal-like things. At 150 Myrs ago we have dinosaurs, no whales, no apes etc. and so on. Now, how did we get from one form of life to the others. You might note that the creationists who originally grappled with these facts, in trying to save their idea of created life, came up with multiple creations and destructions as an hypothosis. However, that failed to explain what had gone on. It only takes a few transitionals to destroy that hypothosis and it fell before the facts. Now, what is your explanation?
This information was posted on another thread, but I chose to move it to this thread because it is more relevent here. My response to this is the dating methods are not factual, we cannot depend on the dating methods at all. Read this page: Page not found – Evolution-Facts ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:04 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 19 of 88 (69947)
11-29-2003 8:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
11-29-2003 8:19 PM
|
|
Hey buzsaw, lets try not to use Micro and Macro terminology. The understanding of how micro became macro is a big problem currently in my mind. I would say it is better to say, what about the intermediate fossils which slide inbetween the fossils we have today? Intermediate fossils would represent life which had half working organs: organs which are part species before and part species after. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic P.S. Buzsaw if you want to join the discussion on micro and macro come here: http:// EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution --> EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 11-29-2003 8:19 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: 05-10-2003
|
|
|
Message 20 of 88 (69949)
11-29-2003 8:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:24 PM
|
|
Can I ask where the "half working organs" idea came from??? Why would organs that didn't work be selected for? All surviving changes would be fulling working organs, just incrementally different from prior ones. It's like the word game where you change just one letter at a time. get becomes set - sat - mat - map - may -say. All are perfectly good words. ------------------ Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:24 PM | | Sonic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:45 PM | | Asgara has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 21 of 88 (69950)
11-29-2003 8:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Asgara
11-29-2003 8:39 PM
|
|
asgara writes: Can I ask where the "half working organs" idea came from??? While back I studied the fossil record because I was trying to show or see how the fossil record represented "toe". Here is one of those webpages. webpage 1: http://www.catholiceducation.org/...cles/science/sc0042.html
asgara writes: Why would organs that didn't work be selected for? All surviving changes would be fulling working organs, just incrementally different from prior ones. It's like the word game where you change just one letter at a time. get becomes set - sat - mat - map - may -say. All are perfectly good words. Exactly, my point. If natural selction is factual lets say, it would remove these intermediate fossils or forms of life which would allow gradulism, making gradulism impossible. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Asgara, posted 11-29-2003 8:39 PM | | Asgara has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Asgara, posted 11-29-2003 9:08 PM | | Sonic has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 22 of 88 (69953)
11-29-2003 9:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:22 PM
|
|
If you disagree with the dating methods then you might want to go the thread -- "Creationist Arguements with Dating Methods". I will set that up now and post some of what you site says. There is no good carrying on with this part of the discussion until you see how very wrong about dating your site is. I warned you to pick more carefully. They lie you know.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:22 PM | | Sonic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:23 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: 05-10-2003
|
|
|
Message 23 of 88 (69954)
11-29-2003 9:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:45 PM
|
|
I agree that natural selection would probably remove organisms with "half-formed organs". Would you have survived if you were born with half a heart? That is NOT what the TOE predicts, rather small, incremental changes that still leave a fully functioning organ but one that may be better able to do its job in some way. Generations of small changes CAN add up to large changes. I don't see that your link was to a non-biased site. It makes many false statements and strawman arguments. It also used quotes by SJ Gould. He is discussing punk-eek, punctuated equilibrium. He never meant his theory as an over-throw of evolution. It is more of a way of describing how changes can happen "relatively" quickly given a large change in environment and selective pressure. One of the biologist can explain this better than I can, and hopefully correct my errors. ------------------ Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:45 PM | | Sonic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:18 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 88 (69958)
11-29-2003 9:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Asgara
11-29-2003 9:08 PM
|
|
asgara writes: Generations of small changes CAN add up to large changes. Explain please what you mean, if small changes can lead into big changes it would require what we call gradulism which requires species with fully working organs BUT it would appear phenotypical that that species had part this and part that, this process would continue untill what we have today, in other words we might have intermediate after intermediate after intermediate untill we have the transitional(i.e. what we do have in the fossil record) then not so intermediate, and not so intermediate again,(transitional) and not so intermediate again, and so on untill finally today. Yes some species would also have half working hearts, which would make it so they did not live for to long, less time persay. Of course the organism would have to function somewhat, but it would not function so good as it would have errors, like a 3rd heart beat by natural process. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Asgara, posted 11-29-2003 9:08 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:24 PM | | Sonic has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 88 (69960)
11-29-2003 9:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:06 PM
|
|
Creationist Arguements with Dating Methods I dont see this thread you are talking about. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:06 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:25 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 26 of 88 (69961)
11-29-2003 9:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:18 PM
|
|
Sonic, are you actually using the old "half formed" organs argument? Let me, again,clarify what you are saying. You think that major evolutionary changes could not have happened because organs in "transition" would have to be unworkable. Is that your argument? added by edit: You use the expression "half formed heart". What do you think would constitute a half formed heart? [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:18 PM | | Sonic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:36 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 27 of 88 (69962)
11-29-2003 9:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:23 PM
|
|
It should be there by now, press refresh on your browser.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:23 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 28 of 88 (69965)
11-29-2003 9:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:22 PM
|
|
I'll let you do some working away at the new dating thread and try not to overwhelm you (and I'm going out this evening maybe ) However, aside from the dating of the layers, they are in definite layers. There was a time with only certain kinds of life and a time later with others. Aside from the dating of the order how do you explain the order? (To save a moment of time, there is a thread on the flood and sorting of remains -- the fossils are NOT sorted by speed, ability to move, size, intellect or anything that creationists suggest so you will give yourself another problem if you try to suggest that)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:22 PM | | Sonic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:44 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 88 (69966)
11-29-2003 9:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:24 PM
|
|
nosyned writes: Sonic, are you actually using the old "half formed" organs argument? Maybe mine is different, not sure what you mean exactly.
nosyned writes: Let me, again,clarify what you are saying. You think that major evolutionary changes could not have happened because organs in "transition" would have to be unworkable. Is that your argument? No not to that understanding. The understanding is: take for example the webpage posted by paulk in the other thread on the fossil record: 1.) Page Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of
Newfoundland For me to consider the reptilian in this picture to become mammilian like it shows in this picture we need to represent this change with intermediate jaws and ear bones, and skulls, an brains which would ffit into the skulls, just more intermediates, this would be gradulism. I understand that we dont have all fossils and we may never have them all because of how they form and because of land problems, but that is the problem exactly, without the more fossils we have no evolution according to the fossil record, we need those changes in order to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution.
nosyned writes: You use the expression "half formed heart". What do you think would constitute a half formed heart?
This is a really bad example, please refer to the example in this post. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:24 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 30 of 88 (69968)
11-29-2003 9:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:04 PM
|
|
Thank you, Sonic, for dropping the 1% thing. It shows you can learn something. Now I'd like to understand what your issue is with similarities. Taking fossilized bones for now, what do you expect it to show? Until we had DNA evidence we have always taken relatedness as being indicated by similarities. If you don't agree, why do the (some?) baraminologists (creationists) take all cats to be a cat-kind? Why not have aardvarks, whales and tigers in a "kind"? Isn't it because of the similarities?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:04 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2