|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again hawkes nightmare,
but i believe it was just a type of bat that died out because it couldn't adapt o its environment, not a transitional species You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion is curiously incapable of altering reality to match.
but i know the layout of forums, as i am currently registered to about 5 or 6 of them. And this forum has some features not found on many. This of course, is due to intelligent design, but that's a different topic for a different thread. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
here's you disproof: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
and more: If a giraffe's neck only has seven vertebrae, how is it so flexi | HowStuffWorks also, not mentioned, is their circulatory system pertaining to their neck. the heart needs to be strong to pump all that blood up to their heads. otherwise it would be passing out a lot. but once the giraffe bends down to get water, all of that muscle pressure that pumps the blood up to the head would make the giraffe's head explode! so God came up with a plan and inseted valves in the neck's passageways that oen and close corresponding to the neck's position. one is open, one is closed. when the giraffe bends down, they switch, partially cutting off blood arteries so the head won't explode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
hey guess what? i found more! Proofs that evolution never happened, with rebuttals
Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given. [b][color=red]I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein[/color=red][/b]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi hawkes nightmare.
here's you disproof: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design If you want to discuss this PRATT please start a new thread. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. One of the things we like to do in the forum is stay on topic. This has nothing to do with transitional fossils. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites.
[b][color=red]I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein[/color=red][/b]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites. Looking at the first of them, I see that it states:
the bombardier beetle shows evidence of evolution and seriously challenges the concept of design The second attributes the neck of the giraffe to, and I quote:
survival of the fittest ... and gives no hint of a reason to suppose that it did not evolve. And the third is explicitly devoted to debunking dumb creationist arguments. Would you like to shoot yourself in the foot a fourth time? Only we now have a thread explicitly devoted to your brand of flagrant nonsense. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Just to be clear, hawkes nightmare,
no i shouldn't because it is relevant to this thread. cyote said he wanted animals that disprove evolution, i gave him three websites Coyote's comment is not the topic. The topic is transitional fossils show evolution in process. Read Message 1: that is the topic. If you want to discuss your websites with Coyote, he is waiting for you here
PRATT Party and Free for All, Message 1. Note also that bare links with no comment are violations of forum guidelines. You may want to read them to be sure they are like other forums:
Forum Guidelines Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
The evidence shows that whenever genetic analysis is done, that no evidence for ecophenotypic variation is found, and in it's place, several cryptic species are found that are more than adequate to explain the previous old (1976) idea that ecophenotypic variation was involved Wow. That's a pretty sweeping statement. Let's see if the latest literature by the top scientists supports it.
quote: Some heavy names there, RAZD. And they obviously see ecophenotypes not only as a possibility but as a real problem in using this particular foram as a proxy. I think Michael Knappertsbusch articulates the central problem most handsomely:
quote: I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. You appreciate that it renders the foraminiferal fossil record nonsensical as "an unbroken evolutionary progression". But how on earth are you going to counter all of that scientific literature? Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I didn't think your original point had all that much to do with the frequency with which ecophenotypic variation is found in foraminifera. I thought that Kaichos Man was claiming that Arnold and Parker had confused species differences with ecophenotypic differences, which isn't true, and which KM's evidence doesn't touch on anyway. The extent to which ecophenotypism is actually exhibited by the foraminifera doesn't seem very relevant.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes: I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. He's not trying to destroy the concept, Kaichos Man: he's arguing that the molecular phylogeny paper you provided earlier helps resolve the problem you are proposing. -----
Kaichos Man writes: I think Michael Knappertsbusch articulates the central problem most handsomely... ...and promptly demonstrates that evolution, and not ecophenotypic variation, is the proper conclusion.
Here is a link to the discussion section of that article. Read the segment titled "Did the predictions hold true?" You will see Knappertsbusch propose that the morphological variation in these forams is evolutionary, and varies over evolutionary time, and mention nothing about ecophenotypes or variation over ecological time). You cited two scientists stating why they were doing their particular studies, and ignoring the fact that the studies purport to have solved the problem in favor of evolution. Edited by Bluejay, : Minor cosmetic alterations. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Still grasping at hope, Kaichos Man?
I understand why you have embarked on this Quixotic mission to destroy the concept of ecophenotypy, RAZD. You appreciate that it renders the foraminiferal fossil record nonsensical as "an unbroken evolutionary progression". Curiously it doesn't. All the articles that mention ecophenotypes are discussing species varieties already known at the time, and in no case that I have seen has anyone said that two species from outside of a genus were found to be ecophenotypic varieties of a single species. Here's the 1978 paper by Helen Tappan:
quote: Notice that she talks about variations within a species that are already known as variants, and she explains it by ecophenotypic variation. Notice that she also lists two such species from the same genus, Elphidium but does not suggest that they are one species. Notice that one of her ecophenotype species, Ammonia parkinsoniana comes from the genus that was later found to be composed of cryptic species when genetic analysis was done. Here's another article:
quote: So we have another species with known ecophenotype variants, and we still see change in the frequency of traits in their populations from generation to generation, either in response to environmental factors, or to adaptation within the ecophenotypes for different ecological preferences. Looks like that still supports the topic thesis that Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process. This is the best case for ecophenotypes I could find, and it is not any comfort for your position, because it does not change any species classifications or group any species together into a new super species, and that is the kind of result you need to invalidate Parker and Arnold. Note that I did find this in google:
quote: Unfortunately the abstract says nothing more about Parker, but we can certainly feel confident that he was well aware of the issue of ecophenotypic variation in fossil foraminifera when he and Arnold made their morphological analysis. Here's the abstract:
quote: In other words, the people developing the automated image analysis systems, such as the one later used by Parker and Arnold to analyze all known planktonic foraminifera, were calibrating them against known instances of ecophenotypic variations within certain known species. With this calibration the system then identifies the variations within Neogloboquadrina pachyderma and Globorotalia inflata as being members of a single species, and not divided out into new species based on morphology alone. The result is a conservative underestimation of species diversity, where some differences in morphology may be grouped together when they are actually distinct species, as has been found to be the case when genetic analysis is done. This further weakens your position. And your link doesn't necessarily prove your case either, only that they are discussing whether it is one or the other when they say (see italics):
quote: Want to provide the link so we can see what the whole abstract says? I could not find it, however I did find this:
quote: Again, it looks like division into subspecies (ie a subpopulation variety) is more likely than a single species with different development in different ecologies. It will be interesting to see what happens when we get to genetic analysis eh? I'd bet on sibling cryptospecies within a morphospecies resulting in increased diversity one more time, but it isn't necessary. Do you understand that whether they are ecophenotypic varieties within a single known species, or actually a morphospecies with multiple cryptic species, that the classification is still a group of forams that have evolved as different genetic lineages from other foram species? Do you understand that this does not affect the tree of life of common ancestry as determined by Parker and Arnold? Do you understand that they are not saying that Uvigerina peregrina is the same species as Globorotalia truncatulinoides, Ammonia parkinsoniana, Elphidium gunteri, Elphidium galvestonense, Palmerinella palmerae, AND Ammotium salsum - as was falsely claimed by Troste and Pitman? That would be the kind of information you need, not articles discussing the level of variation seen within these species as they are currently classified.
Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against. I have, and I have found very few articles (per information above) that actually talk about ecophenotypes existing, rather than articles where ecophenotypes are being reclassified as cryptic species or distinct subpopulation varieties. I also went to the home page for The Journal of Foraminal Research:http://jfr.geoscienceworld.org/ and a search of their data base for "ecophenotype" turned up three (3) articles: quote: The first one is already listed above, the second talks about Ammonia, Tritaxis and Elphidium, two of which have already been discussed, and the abstract for the third article mentions neither ecophenotypes nor morphospecies. This is three out of hundreds and hundreds of articles about foraminifera.
Some heavy names there, RAZD. And they obviously see ecophenotypes not only as a possibility but as a real problem in using this particular foram as a proxy. And again, your conclusion just does not follow from the data: they are not regrouping species together into a new superspecies, but discussing existing classifications, and in many cases refining the definitions with either sybling cryptic species or subspecies populations. As for your "heavy names" attempted argument from authority, I note that Jan Pawlowski is one of the authors of the article we've discussed previously (Message 40):
And here is the whole abstract:
quote:... So when the paper says that both examples "perfectly illustrate high cryptic diversity revealed in almost all molecular studies" they specifically mean that there are cryptic species that look very similar but that they are genetically distinct. ... Likewise when they say that "morphology-based studies largely underestimated foraminiferal diversity" they means that there are more species than is readily apparent from just looking at the morphology due to the cryptic species looking so similar. Entirely the opposite of what your creationist website tries to pretend. So I'm still not finding any evidence that begins to support your position.
But how on earth are you going to counter all of that scientific literature? Try googling "ecophenotypic foraminifera", and you'll see what you're up against. Curiously, that is how I found all the articles on morphospecies and cryptic species. For instance, here is another one by those "heavy names" Jan Pawlowsli and Maria Holzmann:
quote: We still see genetic analysis finding cryptic species replacing previous classifications of ecophenotypes. We still find that
"The evidence shows that whenever genetic analysis is done, that no evidence for ecophenotypic variation is found, and in it's place, several cryptic species are found that are more than adequate to explain the previous old (1976) idea that ecophenotypic variation was involved." That's a pretty sweeping statement. Let's see if the latest literature by the top scientists supports it. If it is wrong, then it should be a simple matter for you to find a single article that refutes it. The fact is, still, that none of your articles yet posted either support your position or invalidates that statement. It seems that the issue of ecophenotypic variants is already known in the study of forams, and that the degree of variation involved is not enough to turn the phylum of foraminifera into a single species. If anything, this has led to a conservative classification of foram species into general morphological groupings that includes the ecophenotypic variation, and that rather than the overestimating the numbers of species this has underestimated the actual species diversity. Nor is the degree of variation involved sufficient to invalidate the hundreds of speciation events and evolutionary lineages of descent found in the fossil record, as found by Parker and Arnold. When we see transitions like this in the fossil record:
Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Do you understand that whether they are ecophenotypic varieties within a single known species, or actually a morphospecies with multiple cryptic species, that the classification is still a group of forams that have evolved as different genetic lineages from other foram species? Yes I do.
Do you understand that this does not affect the tree of life of common ancestry as determined by Parker and Arnold? No I don't. RAZD, let's look at some of the terms used frequently in the study of foraminifera: "Ecophenotypic". "Morphospecies". "Plasticity" "Cryptic genetic diversity". "Cryptic genetic variation". "Intra-species variation". "Clinal morphology". Do you notice anything about these terms, RAZD? They all (more or less) mean the same thing. They certainly lead to the same conclusion: The extreme genetic flexibility of foraminifera makes morphology a very poor indicator of species. Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Kaichos Man writes: RAZD, let's look at some of the terms used frequently in the study of foraminifera: "Ecophenotypic". "Morphospecies". "Plasticity" "Cryptic genetic diversity". "Cryptic genetic variation". "Intra-species variation". "Clinal morphology". I don't think this is true, and I'm wondering why you think it is true. Google scholar gets 104,000 hits for "foraminifera" and only 456 for "foraminifera ecophenotypic". This means that the term "ecophenotypic" appears in less than half a percent of articles about foraminifera. The word "ecophenotype" appears in only a little over half a percent of the articles. "Morphospecies" in about half a percent. "Plasticity" one percent. "Cryptic genetic diversity" and "cryptic genetic variation" about .7 percent (and that's with a search only for the presence of these terms, not their order). "Intra-species variation" less than half of a tenth of a single percent. "Clinal morphology" about half a percent. Would you believe that the words "clinal morphology" appears more often in papers on astrophysics than on foraminifera? Well, believe it! How are you defining "frequently?" Perhaps to you "frequently" means "not completely absent from papers on foraminifera?"
Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark. If you have any evidence at all (as opposed to making stuff up) supporting your claim that Arnold and Parker (not Palmer) mistook ecophenotypic diversity for species diversity, then please cite it now. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024