Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
298 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (3 members, 295 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,902 Year: 16,938/19,786 Month: 1,063/2,598 Week: 309/251 Day: 37/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 246 (139634)
09-03-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Robert Byers
09-03-2004 3:02 PM


quote:
Rea[d] your plankton thing but its just speciation and interpretation still to me.

Of course it is interpretation, what else are you going to do with data. Data has to be interpretated in order for it to say anything. Evolution is an interpretation that is CONSISTENT with the data while creationism is not. This is what science does, interpret data so that ALL of the data fits into a coherent picture through testable theories.

Second, speciation is exactly what evolution is. Change over time and genetic isolation (ie speciation). So you are saying that you interpret this as being evolutionary change just as I do. There is nothing stopping this sort of change creating greater diversity over greater spans of time resulting in the biodiversity we see today.

quote:
About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood.

Will you please point me to the evidence that led you to this conclusion. This is quite a claim, going from a land mammal to a fully adapted aquatic mammal in just a few (5-10?) generations.

quote:
However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.

So we go from otter to blue whale in how long? 5-10 generations? And how long would they stay in that niche? One generation, or about 5 years? This isn't even enough time for an otter like environment to develop after a catastrophic world wide flood.

Next, you have an otter giving birth to an aquatic mammal that weighs upwards of 300 pounds at birth. Care to explain how that happens?

Don't you realize how wild and unsupported your claims are? Especially in the face of known transitional fossils for aquatic mammals that show a step by step process that never anything as drastic as what you are claiming.

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-03-2004 02:46 PM

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-07-2004 11:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Robert Byers, posted 09-03-2004 3:02 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2004 12:09 AM Loudmouth has not yet responded
 Message 228 by Robert Byers, posted 09-04-2004 3:30 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 227 of 246 (139790)
09-04-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Loudmouth
09-03-2004 3:43 PM


set background on that gif to white for better visibility

the start code is "blockcolor=white" in's

the end code is "/blockcolor" in's

put the whole thing inside a "qs" to "/qs" box so the blockcolor applies to the box

Nice picture


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Loudmouth, posted 09-03-2004 3:43 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 228 of 246 (139892)
09-04-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Loudmouth
09-03-2004 3:43 PM


I offer only an alternative view (probably correct) on what must of happened to explain speciation.
There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think.
Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Loudmouth, posted 09-03-2004 3:43 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2004 3:57 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 231 by Loudmouth, posted 09-07-2004 12:32 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1932
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 229 of 246 (139902)
09-04-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Robert Byers
09-04-2004 3:30 PM


they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater.

Thats the mammalian dive reflex. Triggered during deep dives, its been well known in certain marine mammals since the early 1900s and until the 1950s wasnt thought to exist in humans. Its hardly a new thing.

http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/225

its also off topic.

This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-04-2004 06:31 PM


*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Robert Byers, posted 09-04-2004 3:30 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2004 11:38 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 230 of 246 (140021)
09-04-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by DrJones*
09-04-2004 3:57 PM


Remember too that all animals that grow within an egg type process are immersed in liquid during that phase. Ability of newborns to learn to swim also is known, and would be a survival advantage.

What is NOT seen here is that the lenght of time that human free-divers can stay down has increased significantly beyond the ability of the japanes pearl divers (who have\had been doing this for years and have not transformed into "marinized" humans). Or that the time the japanese divers can stay down is significantly greater than the newer free-divers that train for the competitions. If they were able to adapt, these pearl divers that have culturally been doing this for thousands of years should be developing fins on hands and feet to fit Roberts scenario. It ain't so.

See http://www.oceansonline.com/pearl_divers.htm for some interesting information, particularly about how long free-diving has been around.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 09-04-2004 3:57 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 246 (140668)
09-07-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Robert Byers
09-04-2004 3:30 PM


quote:
There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think.

Not one human can hold their breath as long as either a dolphin or whale. Nor can humans withstand the same depths for prolonged periods as whales can. Also, humans need freshwater while whales can drink saltwater. Sorry, but the amount of adaptation needed to adjust to a TOTALLY aquatic lifestyle requires mutation and natural selection. There is no other way around it. Also, do you see anything that resembles a whale that lives in a savanna? Of course not. It is a much larger change in physiology and morphology than you think.

quote:
Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret

But the fossils are here now as is the DNA of living organisms. Both of these point to the slow evolution of land mammals to aquatic mammals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Robert Byers, posted 09-04-2004 3:30 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2004 12:59 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 232 of 246 (143643)
09-21-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


Let me guess - you've been reading ReMine?

Isn't it funny - he says that evolutionists should be able to do this, yet he can't do it himself...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 233 of 246 (143645)
09-21-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by wj
07-27-2004 1:38 AM


Re: Transitionals
WJ:
I think you should be more skeptical about the stuff you read.

[b]Well, that is part of the problem. Creationists exhibit a strong unidirectional skepticism. They are ONLY skeptical of evolution and evolutionist claims. They swallow any nonsensical bilge that a creationist spews without question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by wj, posted 07-27-2004 1:38 AM wj has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 234 of 246 (143649)
09-21-2004 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Loudmouth
09-07-2004 12:32 PM


Is Robert Byers now arguing that whales micro-evolved from land animals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Loudmouth, posted 09-07-2004 12:32 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 3:14 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 246 (143667)
09-21-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Chiroptera
09-21-2004 12:59 PM


quote:
Is Robert Byers now arguing that whales micro-evolved from land animals?

Yep. And in only a couple hundred years.

Added in edit:

From Rob in mssg 225:

About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood. There would be no intermediates in actuality. However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.
Rob

So he is doing away with the land mammal to whale transitionals by saying that they shouldn't exist since whales evolved in only a few generations. He is claiming that the fossils are not transitionals but rather species with no links to either whale or land mammal.

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-21-2004 02:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2004 12:59 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2004 3:29 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 236 of 246 (143672)
09-21-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Loudmouth
09-21-2004 3:14 PM


So he claims that all marsupials evolved from separate lineages, and that whale evolved from land animals. What doesn't Robert like about the theory of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 3:14 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:08 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 237 of 246 (143696)
09-21-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chiroptera
09-21-2004 3:29 PM


The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore.
And that claims of Toe can be shown to be without evidence to persuade or down right wrong.
Creationists have said wrong things in fighting Toe. Like not being liberal enough with species change and getting hung up on kind. Even though human differences is striking and mush of been instant after the Ark.
Any speciation that is seen today or shown to have occured is just a special case. However Toe'ers take conviction from it of major change explaining origins.
Like Einstein correcting Newton. Newton stuff seemed to explain all but in fact was only a special case. The Einstein of Toe has not yet come.And it will be bad news for most Toe/origin thought.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2004 3:29 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 246 (143697)
09-21-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Robert Byers
09-21-2004 4:08 PM


quote:
The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore.

AHH, finally, we get to the bottom of what makes Rob tick. No amount of evidence is going to make Rob go against the sheep herder's manual. Oh well, I had hoped that he would be open minded. I guess not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:08 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 239 of 246 (144281)
09-23-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
07-21-2004 10:09 AM


HYPOCRISY
WK writes:

Saying that there is no 1 single 'complete' fossil lineage doesn't mean that there is no physical evidence of evolution and certainly doesn't mean that scientists are lying. At the worst all it means is that we don't have fossils showing every transitional stage in any 1 evolutionary lineage, so what? Such a fossil lineage still wouldn't be 'proof' to those who object to evolution on religious grounds.

Mangy Tiger writes:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=254&m=237#237 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=254&m=237#237">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=254&m=237#237

Talking solely about the claim that the British Royal Family is descended from King David, there is a break in the supplied lineage and so the claim is refuted.

Mangy Tiger is an evolutionist arguing that the British Royal Crown MUST not contain a single break in the lineage OR the claim is refuted.

Now in this thread you evos assert the opposite.

For the record I side with Wounded King.

Absence in the record or a complete record does not necessarily mean thus and such.

The only issue is macro evolution - one species evolving into another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2004 10:09 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by MangyTiger, posted 09-23-2004 10:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 242 by Admin, posted 09-23-2004 10:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 244 by Loudmouth, posted 09-24-2004 1:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 240 of 246 (144298)
09-23-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Cold Foreign Object
09-23-2004 9:30 PM


Re: HYPOCRISY
Wow !

I'm almost a prophet . I expected WILLOWTREE to use this argument but over in the Bible thread.

Let me see if I can explain the difference in a straightforward way. I have no formal education in any biology related subject beyond O-level - the exams you took at ~16 in my part of England in the 1970s - so if I screw up in the evolutionary part I hope some of those who know more will correct it (and be gentle with me !).

In terms of describing the lineage of a given individual (in our case the current Queen of England) you are, by definition, talking about individuals. Specifically, you are talking about parent to child relationships. You are saying this person is the son/daughter of that person. Family trees for people are very exact things - if I don't know who my grandparents are how can I claim that someone is my great-grandparent ? It is simply impossible.

In terms of describing the lineage of a given species you are, by definition talking about species. As I understand it the original lineage charts for species were derived based on the morphology (structure and shape) of the fossils in the fossil record. As such the lineages derived from the fossil record reflect the general path from one species to another based on traceble changes in structure coupled with position in the fossil record.

In other words you're trying to compare apples and oranges. The lineage of individuals is not the same as the lineage of species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 9:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 10:42 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019