|
Author
|
Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
And criticizing evolution does not prove creationism.
quote:
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
Why should there be? However, we have ample DNA evidence that supports the lineages theorized from the incomplete fossil record. If the lineages were lies then the DNA evidence shouldn't match up. However, lineages derived from fossils and lineages derived from DNA match up.
quote:
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence.
The arguments are a direct result of the physical evidence. Nothing in science is theorized without physical evidence. The fossil record is only one source of evidence for evolution, DNA is another deep source for evolution, and current observations of evolutionary mechanisms is another. What you need to show is why independent variables, such as fossils and DNA, keep pointing to the same thing: evoluton.
quote:
This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)
Why should there be a complete lineage? A very good example of why the fossil record is incomplete is the passenger pigeon. This bird went extinct in the early 20th century. When european settlers first came to north america these birds numbered in the billions. In fact, they were the most populous bird species of their era, no other bird species outnumbered them. Settlers reported seeing flocks that were miles in diameter. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Absolutely zero. The most successful bird species of the last 1,000 years and we have zero fossils to evidence it's being alive. Calculate that into your statistics.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
You admitt it. That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis".
PE was put forth not as alternative but as an additional method of speciation. Gradualism does occur, but so does PE. PE involves the "quick" evolution (by "quick" I mean thousands of years) of a subpopulation that is not likely to be fossilized. This subpopulation then suddenly (in geologic terms) overwhelms the gradually evolving population. Tell me where this theory goes wrong? Tell me why we should see incremental changes in the fossil record? Tell me why you refuse to accept the already accepted transitional fossils? Oh, that's right:
quote:
PE demonstrates conclusively that the fossil record is all about interpretation. NOT science.
The fossil record is about evidence that you can't counter, so you redefine everything (including "transitional" and "PE") so that you can beat down the strawman. Nice try, but science is a tool used in interpretation. It is the preferred tool because it is based on objective measures, not bias. This is in stark contrast to creationism which relies on a subjective translation of a 3,000 year old text that says nothing about the fossil record (except that it shouldn't be sorted, see Noah's Flood). This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 03:13 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM | | Robert Byers has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Transitionals
quote:
This is from an evolutionist who believes in the regional theory..
You can look at the scientific paper that the author in Discover was basing his article on (pretty sure anyway). The last author in the paper is A. Thorne, who I am assuming is Alan Thorne. Go here: Just a moment... I have found that it is best to get the information straight from the source instead of hearing a filtered version through the media. Anyway, Alan Thorne's group is claiming that there was a branch of anatomically modern humans that were living in Australia as measured by their mitochondrial DNA. This example shows that humans were in Australia before the current mitDNA lineage was created. An interesting note is that this blows the creationist theory of a mitochondrial Eve being the Biblical Eve, since there are now observed instances of humans outside of that mitochondrial lineage. Also, it also states that current ancient Australians are within the current mitDNA lineage, so this probably means that either the lineage died out in Australia through dilution or Australia was repopulated after humans died out in Australia. However, this does put in doubt the "Out of Africa" theory for all living human lineages, but the mitDNA was extracted from anatomically MODERN human fossils and does not put into doubt an African origination for all human lineages, both living and dead. Here is the abstract:
DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Transitionals
Sorry about two replies, got ahead of myself. As to H. erectus and H. sapien being the same species, your reference has this picture and claims that the H. erectus skulls on the left and the living human on the right are in fact identical.
However, they fail to show skull to skull comparisons. Extra soft tissue on the modern human example could mask the lack of supraorbital bone mass, and therefore the fossil and modern examples might not be identical. Do you happen to have a source showing examples of human skulls and H. erectus skulls side by side that show the same amount of supra-orbital protrusion? (just being a skeptic as well  ). The next quote from the site you listed is a keeper.
There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus . So if there is a difference, then there is a gap to fill. If there is no difference then they are the same species. You creationists have a tough time defining what a transitional species should look like. Also, within this statement they also admit that the cranial differences are real, and therefore the post-cranial doesn't matter. That, and the brain capacity of H. erectus is still different than humans. This is a quote that your site lifted from a Scientific American article:
[qs]Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.[/quote] Which doesn't put into doubt that modern humans are qualitatively different than fossil hominids from prior to 2 million years ago, which means you still have to deal with australopithicenes and homos older than 2 million years old. Also, the fact that even scientists debate on how to classify these fossils should tell you that they are in fact very close to one another, and that there may not be any gaps in the evolution of modern man in the fossil record. So, again, on one hand we have creationists griping because there are large gaps and the next second they claim that the transitional species are too close together to be distinguished. Can they ever be happy?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Weak case so far...
quote:
Not every generation but every speciman that show some amount of change
And that is the problem. Whenever there is any change, creationists want a gradual change with fossils demonstrating every minute difference. For that type of evidence you need not every generation, but about every tenth generation. For example, a transitional fossil is found and they proclaim "Look at the change!" Creationist reply "Now you have two gaps instead of one." Then again, as shown in my post above, they can call small changes as not being indicative of a separate species. For creationists, grey is black, unless it is white. Added in edit:
quote:
If you really did work in a genetics lab then you should know what you are observing is NOT agreed to be the evolution that we are discussing right now...
Then what type of evolution are you talking about, the kind without genetic heredity? Your genes control the makeup of your skeleton, and hence differences in fossil species represent differences in DNA. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 05:17 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Horse linage
quote:
The problems is you cannot show me a lineage from an animal very UNLIKE a horse to the modern horse..
Can you list some objective qualifications for determining "unlikeness"? Or, is this argument going to go on ad infinitum until we reach the first tetrapod transitional fossil? I think that a five toed leafe eater to a single toed grass eater that is substantially different in size and morphology would be enough to satisfy a "complete lineage". We have the complete lineage from the small, five toed tree eater to the large, one toed grass eater. Boom, done.
quote:
I believe your link had more specimens but there were HUGE gaps especially from NON-horse like to horse like
Yeah, there is that gap between synapsids and . . .
quote:
Also, I am not necessarily conceding that Hyracotherium may have evolved into Mesohippus - they simply could have been two different types..
So why the hell are you asking for a complete lineage when you will arbitrarily decide that you can pull out the "they're the same species" when they look too much alike, and then pull out the "they are too dissimilar" when the gap is too large? You have decided to discount these fossils before you even see them, which is evidenced by the fact that you have never put forth objective criteria that would put them into the same species. By objective criteria, I am expecting comparisons of bone size, density, muscle attachment, muscle size; those sort of things, things that are measureable and objective, not a subjective statement like "they look too much alike" or "it still looks horse like".
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
My whole point about PE is not that it is opposed to gradualism. Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable.
PE opposed the thought that gradualism was tenable in EVERY situation. Gradualism is still tenable, but not in every case. PE recongized that we see quick transition between species within the fossil record, but we see gradual changes above the species level (ie genus or family level). PE is about quick changes in the overall gene frequency in populations. That is, PE theorizes that sub-populations can quickly overwhelm the rest of the population instead of the whole population gradually changing at the same rate. However, PE still asserts that mutation and selection happen at accepted rates, but smaller population sizes allow rapid build up of beneficial mutations that are then released into a larger population. Also, if fossils are not scientific evidence, then why do creationists ask for complete lineages? Don't you think that it is dishonest to ask for fossil evidence, and then claim afterwards that fossils can't be evidence?
quote:
How can you say PE did not replace an important point in evolution thought? And so the process of replacing is open to scrunity.
How can you say that evolutionists can never change their mind, then gripe because their theories change?
quote:
And creationists can demonstrate that the previous idea was not backed up by Science but rather was speculation based on evidence of fossils found.
There is a whole fossil sorting thread for you to peruse. I think it is pretty obvious that creationists are NOT able to demonstrate ANYTHING with respect to the fossil record. Here is an example of PE seen in the fossil record. A small population was observed to change gradually, but in another area the same species is observed "suddenly" in the fossil record. From Punctuated Equilibrium Example: A Marine Microfossil
The paper Spencer-Cervato, C. and Thierstein, H.R., 1997. First appearance of Globorotalia truncatulinoides: cladogenesis and immigration. Marine Micropaleontology, v.30, p.267-291. reports on the species Globorotalia crassaformis. There is a location in the South Pacific where this species gradually turns into a transitional species, G. tosaensis, and then into G. truncatulinoides. The gradual change took 500,000 years. In the Indian and Atlantic oceans, in slightly more recent sediment, we find the "sudden" appearance of the descendant species. This "suddenness" is therefore from migration, not Creation. We know that these are different species (and not just strange looking fossils of a single species) because both species still exist today. Thanks to geologist Dr. Andrew MacRae for this example. As you can see, this fits in perfectly with the ideas of PE. A small subpopulation develops through gradualism in one area and then expands into another area. If we only observed the area into which they expanded, it looks to be a 'punctuated' event. This is exactly what PE is trying to relate, rapid migration into a new area from a confined area.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: when a rate is still a little late.
Brad, I am not sure I understood your post, but PE uses the same mutation rate as gradualism, and the same filter (ie natural selection) as gradualism. However, PE adds one other factor, the ability of beneficial mutations to quickly become entrenched in smaller populations, quicker than in larger populations. After the smaller population speciates, then they will quickly migrate out and replace the previous species. So it really isn't a matter of grammatical use for "gradual", but rather a mechanism (ie smaller populations) that causes a different rate using the same mechanisms. In comparison to the human lifespan, both could be considered "gradual" but in comparison there are real differences.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
THE official line is, rightly, that fossils are evidence of something but scientific evidence of nothing.
Fossils are objectively measured observations that support the predictions of the theory of evolution. It doesn't get more scientific than that. Could you please show creationist predictions in regards to what fossils should look like, which layers these fossils should be found in, and how they are related to each other? Evolution is able to do all three; creationism is only able to bitch about evolution.
quote:
Yet the point remaims that PE replaced a previous idea.
The point doesn't remain. Gradualism is still a viable theory, just not a theory that is accurate in all situations. Populations can evolve through gradualism, but at other times they evolve through PE. For instance, if I said that "All freight in the US is transported on the railway system," I would be wrong since it also goes by truck and by air. However, this doesn't mean that the railway system has been 'replace', only that it isn't correct in every situation.
quote:
They are untested (indeed untestable) hypothesis claiming to be scientific theory.
Bull. Look at the example of the marine invertebrate example of PE. The theory of PE states that there should be an isolated area where gradual evolution is seen. Then, there should be a rapid migration out of that smaller area. This is exactly what we see, one area with gradual evolution and another area where the new species appears rapidly in the fossil record. Also, PE is supported by genetic studies. It has been shown that beneficial mutations spread faster in a smaller population. So this is why you see quicker adaptation in a smaller population than in a larger population. It also makes sense that at some point this smaller sub-population will be able to outcompete its ancestors and take over their territory. PE is testable and supported, no ifd, ands, or buts.
quote:
The "tests" wern't overthrown. There were never any tests. It was never a scientific assertion.
Bull. Fossils were placed in objectively constructed phylogenies based on their morphology. These phylogenies were then compared to the order they are found in within the fossil record. This is a TEST of two independently measured observations. Guess what, evolution passes the test. Evolution has always been tested, and continues to be tested no matter how many times you say otherwise. We have shown you time after time HOW to test evolution, and each time you feign to discuss those tests. Instead, you flee back to your comfortable place and cry "INJUSTICE." Here is mark24's description of phylogeny (cladistics) and stratigraphy.
Mark24
Testing Cladistics & Stratigraphy Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value. Stratigraphic Consistency Index The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)." Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation? Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Can you please explain how this isn't a test of past events by using the model of the theory of evolution?
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Not me but you guys need to show the scientic method can be applied to past and gone events.
Forensic science and archaeology. Just two examples that are more well known.
quote:
The discovery of evolutionary rate change (your words/premise) is not the result of the scientific method.
Just reinterpretation of data already received.
That is what the scientific method does, interpret data. The interpretations are trustworthy because they are based on objective evidence and not on subjective opinion or faith. Also, the scientific method requires that all theories be falsifiable by objective data. The changing rates are supported by observation of both the fossil record and population genetics, both of which are objective measurements. PE and Gradualism are scientific theories arrived at through the scientific method.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
The constant bringing up of forensic and archelogy as evidence that origin studies are science makes the very opposite point.
Why when we discuss such great fields as biology,geology,cosmology, your recourse to show they deal in science is to bring up off-broadway studies.
Here in the US, people are put to death on the strength of forensic science alone. If forensics, which uses the scientific method in the same way as the other sciences, is enough to have people killed then wouldn't you think that biology and geology are also trustworthy? Again, the data is objective, and how that data is put together in a model is what a theory is. This theory is then testable by comparing the model to independent data. Again, please explain why there is a correlation between cladistics and stratigraphy. Please explain why this isn't a test of the theory of evolution and why this correlation shouldn't be considered as being supportive of evolution.
quote:
Loudmouth you again say the interpretation of data qualifies as employing the scientific method. It doesn't. Your rules.
Yes, and the interpretation must be consistent with all of the data, falsified by none of it, and the interpretation must make testable predictions. It is therefore possible for new data, or independent evidence, to test the theory/interpretation. This is how the scientific method works, and the opposite of how creation science works.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
With all respect Loudmouth truly. You do as, I see it, and as many supporters of evolution also do retreat when scruntity of origin subjects credibility as science is done. Biology, cosmology, , geology etc that deal with origins should stand and stand very well on thier own merits as to thier claim to be engaged in science.
I was trying to show that methodologies you accept within theories that you accept are no different than the methodologies applied in the study of evolution. I was using analogy, not retreating. The methodologies applied in the study of evolution are as accepted within science as those methdologies used in fields you already accept (such as forensics). However, whenever strong evidence for evolution is presented you retreat to the false assertion "science can't test the past", which is utter bullsh!t. I have shown time and again that Science (big S) can look at past events, and that those who study evolution use Science. It is you who is retreating. Or maybe you can prove me wrong by answering this question: Why is there such a strong correlation between cladistics and stratigraphy? Or, if evolution is false then why do we find transitional fossils where they are predicted to be?
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
quote:
I have forgotten this stuff about cladistics and stratigraphy. Help
Cladograms are "trees of life" constructed by the theory of descent with modification (evolution). That is, the daughter species will have some of the same characteristics as the parent species and will also have new characteristics. Therefore, by using this theory, it is possible to construct parent-daughter relationships between fossil species WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHERE THEY ARE FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is, cladograms are independent from fossil age. We also have another measure for fossils, their position in the fossil record. This is called stratigraphy. This is not a comparison of age via radiometric dating, but a comparison of above/below in the fossil record. Therefore, if the interpretation of the fossil record through descent with modificiation is accurate, then a daughter species should not be found below the parent species in the fossil record. We can directly compare two independent variables, one an interpretation (cladistics) and one that is absolute (stratigraphy). If cladistics is true, then it should correlate to stratigraphy. Lo and behold, they correlate therefore supporting the accuracy of cladistics (descent with modification/evolution). In the fossil record there is a measurable evolutionary signal that can not be denied.
quote:
All that is found are the cousins of each other on different parts of a landscape that was fossilized suddenly.
If they were in the same environment why are they in separate layers, and why do these layers reflect evolution instead of a violent mixing that would be expected from a violent flood? added in edit: The theory of a violent flood is not debated here. I was referring to any event that would create a random distribution of fossils. Therefore, I am arguing for a non-random ordering of fossils by their fit into a cladogram (an evolutionary prediction). This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-23-2004 04:03 PM
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!
quote:
With the interconnectedness (intertwingling) of everything it is hard to hold the line on topics. But this is clearing going to drag this thread off topic and even off forum.
Good point. I will add in edit that the signal seen in the fossil record is different than a mechanism that would create random order.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 08-23-2004 4:33 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
quote:
They are not creatures in progression but just different species living in different communities over some are frozen in time by the event.
So asking for transitional fossils or a complete lineage should not be a creationist contention. Even if a fine graded progression is shown, they can just ignore it like you have above. Therefore, you can not use the argument that there are not any transitional forms in the fossil record.
quote:
The different jaw types is not evidence of anthing but simple speciation.
So you are saying that mammals are within the same kind as reptiles, since mammals speciated from reptiles? I might also add that during mammal fetal development we observe the same progression of jaw bones as seen in the fossil record. That is, there are three centers of ossificiation within the fetal jawbone that then move up into the middle ear. This is surprising since you are claiming that the progression in the fossil record is accidental.
|
™ Version 4.2
