Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 304 (254018)
10-22-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
10-22-2005 1:10 PM


Re: Please watch your language
Moreover, the whole nation that similarities automatically involves relatedness via common descent is just a large, and totally unproven assumption.
Any time that you conclude that an animal is a cat because it looks like other cats; any time that you cracked open a field guide to find out what mushrooms were safe to eat; any time that you remarked on a striking family resemblance between two of your relatives, you've proved the fundamental accuracy of inferring shared ancestry from shared characteristics.
Taxonomic categorization had been practiced for hundreds of years prior to the development of evolutionary models. It's the basis of the time-honored Linnean system of classification. And, predictably, you've only decided to raise an objection now that its a threat to your intellectually vapid spirituality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 10-22-2005 1:10 PM randman has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 182 of 304 (254019)
10-22-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
10-22-2005 1:10 PM


Randman Dodging (as usual)
Yaro, it is totally inconsequential to this debate that evos classify dogs and sea lions in the same suborder or order. Why you think that opinion has relevance, I don't know, but evidently you think it has merit.
It has merit because your whole basis for not likeing the packicitus/whale connection is pretty much: "They don't look the same to ME, those well trained scientists with decades of research under their belt, are all wrong."
I'm basically asking you how does that argument hold up when sea lions and dogs are in the same order as well. Why don't you apply the same logi? "Seals, dogs, and bears don't look the same to me. All those scientists must be wrong."
Essentially Order is a pretty broad taxanomic classification. You have a big problem when it comes to whales and paki, but not dogs and seals. Makes your possition suspect.
[Just say no to blink please]YOU JUST DON"T LIKE THE IMPLICATIONS SO YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSIONS.[/Just say no to blink please]
In terms of process, not man-made classifications, the relevant issue involves groups that can interbreed, which I will label species for this post (although current definitions of "species" can vary widely from that).
Yes, unfortunetly whales and pakis were never designated the same species. They are in the same order. So your insistence on bringing them up all the damn time renders your point moot. No one is suggesting they could interbreed.
Moreover, the whole nation that similarities automatically involves relatedness via common descent is just a large, and totally unproven assumption.
Then how do you explain all the similarities in mamals? And why as you go back do we see half/half breeds?
A good example are monotreems, classified as mamals, but in a lot of ways they are very reptilian. They are related to very primative mamals.
They lay eggs, are virtualy cold blooded, don't have nipples rather secreet milk thrugh their skin, they have a skeletal structure closser to lizards than to mammals. How do you explain those similarities?
Anser: you can't without invoking magic.
ABE: changed subtitle.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-22-2005 02:22 PM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-22-2005 01:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 10-22-2005 1:10 PM randman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 183 of 304 (254020)
10-22-2005 2:21 PM


RE: "Re: Please watch your language" - Crapola subtitle
People, how about plugging something useful into that subtitle field?
PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE - JUST DO IT.
Adminnemooseus

halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 304 (254033)
10-22-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
10-22-2005 1:10 PM


Fully formed?
..... the fact that Pakicetus has absolutely no fully-formed whale features.
Uh oh - there's that old Creo misconception again, I thought rand was confused - now what is it that Creos say that we should see in the fossil record, partially formed species, fully formed features or what?
Would that not mean that it had partially formed whale features, so therefore can be thought of as a transitional?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 10-22-2005 1:10 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Chiroptera, posted 10-22-2005 3:33 PM halucigenia has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 304 (254035)
10-22-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by halucigenia
10-22-2005 3:28 PM


Creationist dispute gravity
quote:
Would that not mean that it had partially formed whale features, so therefore can be thought of as a transitional?
"You cannot consider something a falling body unless it hits the ground."
But that object just hit the ground.
"Now it's lying on the ground, so obviously it's not falling."
What a maroon.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by halucigenia, posted 10-22-2005 3:28 PM halucigenia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Yaro, posted 10-22-2005 3:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 186 of 304 (254036)
10-22-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chiroptera
10-22-2005 3:33 PM


Re: Creationist dispute gravity
Great analogy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chiroptera, posted 10-22-2005 3:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 187 of 304 (254103)
10-22-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by randman
10-21-2005 4:08 PM


Re: Please watch your language
But let's say cladistic studies indicate a strong connection for a nested heirarchy.
That still does nothing to prove ToE. It could just as easily be strong evidence of Intelligent Design, or directed evolution by an Intelligent Agent.
That's the point you fail to grasp. Your evidence or comprehensive analysis supports ID perhaps more so than ToE.
SO why hasn't this intelligence produced another species? I mean, come-on, it's produced millions upon millions of other species (sorry kinds) in almost 6,000 years. You'd think we'd be able to wake up tomorrow and see in the news how some new mammal came outa the arse of farmer john's Dairy cow. When is the last time you recall anything like that happening? Is God on vacation? Running outa new ideas?
If you observe the number of species that have been fossilized, use an age of 6,000 years, and then extrapolate the rate new species were formed at, you'd think we would at least see some new species forming at least once a year (very conservatively). Where do you see such rapid changes?
Yet, if you sit down and think about how slow the earth changes over-all, how slow species change (no cats turing into dogs next door), doesn't it click in your head that these things must have happened over a LONG period of time? Doesn't it make more sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by randman, posted 10-21-2005 4:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 12:56 AM DBlevins has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 188 of 304 (254113)
10-23-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by DBlevins
10-22-2005 11:24 PM


6000 years?
Your post makes no sense. In typical fashion, you either ignore or did not or cannot comprehend criticism of ToE, but instead are responding to your preconceived notions of what you think such criticism is.
Did I ever say anything about 6000 years?
Nope.
Have a nice life. I'm really not interested in talking to someone that makes up stuff about another's position.
This message has been edited by randman, 10-23-2005 01:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DBlevins, posted 10-22-2005 11:24 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-23-2005 6:36 AM randman has replied

halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 304 (254130)
10-23-2005 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by randman
10-21-2005 5:22 PM


OK, let's help by increasing the guesstimate then
OK, [Devil's advocate mode on]
according to sources on this very discussion forum there are approx. 35 mutations for each human individual.
Lets say that whale's ancestors are similar in that respect to humans,
then for each generation there are 35 mutations,
Let's say there are 10 years per whale ancestor generation,
then for 12MA (that evos propose for land mammal to aquatic mammal evolution) there are 35x12,000000/10 = 42,000000 mutations
mutations = steps so that means there have been 42,000000 steps from land mammal to aquatic mammal - where are all these transitionals.
[/da]
Anyone see the fallacy in this argument (anyone meaning you randman).
Don't you know that 87.5% of all statistics are made up?
I considered making the same calculation over the last 5 million or so years of hominid evolution, or over the last 2 million or so years of Homo sp. evolution, or even last 100,000 years or so of Homo Sapiens evolution, but then thought why bother?, we can all pull figures like these out of our arses.
Numbers of mutations obviously don't equate to "steps", numbers of steps don't equate to species, numbers of species don't equate to transitionals and numbers of transitionals don't equate to what we should or should not find in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by randman, posted 10-21-2005 5:22 PM randman has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 190 of 304 (254132)
10-23-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by randman
10-23-2005 12:56 AM


Whatever happened to manners?
Randman, I do not recall you ever stating that you did not accept the 6000 year figure in this thread. Seeing as you debate with the apparent intention of overthrowing the ToE, it is not unreasonable for someone to assume that you may accept that figure, like so many other creationists.
It would be so easy for you to simply point out that this was not the case, and clarify your position for the benefit of all involved here. Instead you resort to being condescending and rude.
quote:
In typical fashion, you either ignore or did not or cannot comprehend criticism of ToE, but instead are responding to your preconceived notions of what you think such criticism is.
How blithely you throw around accusations of people ignoring your posts, when I have already asked for a response from you and have apparently been ignored.
I also find your attitude - that someone trying to debate with you cannot comprehend your criticism, rather than accept that you may in fact be wrong - to be incredibly insulting. If you have to resort to snide comments in your responses, you are failing in this discussion.
Where are your manners, Randman?

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 12:56 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 4:56 PM IrishRockhound has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 191 of 304 (254159)
10-23-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by randman
10-22-2005 1:16 PM


Roll Up! Roll Up! More Creationist Evasion Here!
Randman,
You do realise that the number of lurkers to participants is high, don't you? You therefore must realise that a fair number of people are seeing the evasion of creationism in action, don't you? The longer you refuse to actually engage the worse yours, & creationisms credibilty becomes. The longer we keep you refusing to engage, the more complete the final victory is, regardless of whether you honestly address the issues raised, or not. Keep it up!
Mark, if you want to address my points, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, just typing a lot while studiously and completely evading my points while insisting that is what I am doing is just resulting in me not reading your post past about a third of the way down.
Firstly, I have addressed your point on fossil rarity, you see how easy it is for an intellectually honest person to demonstrate that they have in fact addressed their opponents points rather than the snide evasion you engage in? But then how would you know I have addressed your point when you only read 1/3 rd of what I write? What an idiotic admission, words defy me!
I’ll elaborate on the reply, since you are unable to derive the correct logical conclusions from the cited post. You are attempting to construct an evidentially based logical argument without evidence or logic. In order to come to a sound conclusion it is necessary to have sound premises. In order to know that there aren't enough fossils between two taxa there are a fair number of variables that you need a knowledge of:
What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;
This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.
You then need to know:
What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?:
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?
Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?
Now, these are the premises you require evidentially derived figures for, in order to plug into your equation & reach your conclusion & show evo models are lacking. As far as I can see, you are in possession of none of them. So, given your conclusion is based on an utter lack of factual information, your conclusion can only be as good as your premises, ie. totally vacuous.
Your argument is analogous to person A telling person B they don't have enough fireworks for the show, without knowing how many fireworks person B had to begin with. How many they have just bought. How long the show is due to last, & what is the rate of firework expenditure when the show is on. In fact, your ignorance of your conclusion is far, far worse, you have many more variables you lack knowledge of.
Obviously, and as I stated before, similarities and stratigraphy appearing to match does absolutely nothing to counter the lack of fossils that should appear to detail the process you claim occurred, but which the fossils suggest did not.
Another diversionary waste of oxygen on your part. You failed AGAIN to show the causal link between cladistics & stratigraphy as asked. Aren’t you getting embarrassed? You hold a thought for a few minutes, can't you?
Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.
A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:
1/
every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE
What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 7th time of asking).
2/
Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.
3/
Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained billions of individuals (at any one time) leave no trace? Where have you addressed this? I have checked all of your posts since I raised the issue, & you have never provided an answer.
4/
Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the fifth time.
"A single fossil that is consistent with evolution is evidence of it, because it is a fact predicted by a logically valid scientific theory. There is no arbitrary evidence value line-in-the-sand that must be surpassed before we can accept that evidence. The only standard that logically valid evidence must meet is that it is a logically derived prediction made by a logically valid hypothesis."
Agree, disagree, comment?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 10-23-2005 12:15 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by randman, posted 10-22-2005 1:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by halucigenia, posted 10-23-2005 10:29 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 210 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:17 PM mark24 has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 304 (254168)
10-23-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yaro
09-20-2005 10:31 AM


Majority Accomodates Themselves
Michah:
quote:
I believe in micro- but not macro- evolution
Yaro:
quote:
No such thing. What creationists call 'micro' and 'macro' are the same thing. Biologists make no such distinction.
Logically, micro and macro makes sense. There needs to be some term for designating between intra-species adjustments and bonafide transitional evolutionary progress. Why doesn't micro/macro fit this ticket?
It seems to me that the majority scientific view eliminates these provocative terms to weasle out of the debates these terms propose.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-20-2005 10:31 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by mike the wiz, posted 10-23-2005 10:37 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 195 by NosyNed, posted 10-23-2005 10:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2005 10:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 197 by halucigenia, posted 10-23-2005 10:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 198 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 10:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 200 by mark24, posted 10-23-2005 12:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 215 by coffee_addict, posted 10-23-2005 5:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 304 (254172)
10-23-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by mark24
10-23-2005 9:16 AM


Well done - clear and concise
What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;
This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.
However I would like to add one more (if not implied in the second one):-
What is the time duration of that population ?
as a smaller less stable populations of species that are "in the process of" evolving are less likely to get fossilised just because of their fewer numbers over time. As opposed to the large stable long lasting populations that are rather common in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by mark24, posted 10-23-2005 9:16 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by mark24, posted 10-23-2005 12:05 PM halucigenia has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 194 of 304 (254173)
10-23-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Buzsaw
10-23-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Majority Accomodates Themselves
Hi Buz. Welcome back. (Even though I have changed, I respect your position entirely, and understand why you stick to your guns, and I have no problem with your belief or ideological position).
.
If there were something stopping 50 + 50 making 100 then maybe there would be a debate. The only reason to suggest the two terms, would be because it would favour the creationist position.
I have thought at times, that some kind of barrier was needed, for the protection of a species. Brad might have thought of this, in that I thought that some kind of basic protection of the working morphology would be intact. But when you think about it, this would hinder the ability to adapt over time in order to survive, anyway.
Small changes over a very long time. I don't have much sense of size myself, but really, try and imagine the time-spans we're talking about here. They're vast. We're the last second at midnight.
If evolutionits said, yeah - okay, speciation isn't enough. Then that would portray a false picture of the evidence of clear transitionary forms such as homo floresiensis, Ergaster, Erectus, etc.., and the clear evidence of one species from the genus leading to the next, etc.. What stops this? The evidence shows nothing, and even AIG admitt rapid evolution, they just don't admitt that we would be in the ape-kind.
I used to think one falsification would be enough. But there are none. The true "barrier" is infact workable through a none-barrier. A very clever God would say that normalized selection solves the problem. A none-barrier as a barrier. If your form is great, keep it, if not evolve when a mutation or trait allows you to.
I suspect your problem is imagining basic organs and vital components coming about over time, even complete systemry. Mine too, but I have to learn more if I want to understand how. Unfortunately I am biologically incapable, as I am no good at the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2005 10:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 195 of 304 (254174)
10-23-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Buzsaw
10-23-2005 10:14 AM


Use of Micro and Macro Evolution both point are right
Logically, micro and macro makes sense. There needs to be some term for designating between intra-species adjustments and bonafide transitional evolutionary progress. Why doesn't micro/macro fit this ticket?
It seems to me that the majority scientific view eliminates these provocative terms to weasle out of the debates these terms propose.
I agree with you Mike. The terms have been used by biolgists (apparently) to distinguish between changes that stay within a species and those that separate spieces.
However, in some contexts that can be misleading. The size of the changes and the nature of the changes are (I think) in general exactly the same. That is, the genetic changes that mark different individuals within a species may be in no way especially different than changes that support a speciation event. It just depends on the details that might force a population into two OR, more importantly, if populations are separated the accumulation of many similar "micro" changes will finallly produce a speciation event. Once we have a speciation the two genetic pools can go on to very, very large accumlation of changes to produce higher taxa.
However, all the changes ALL of them, are micro (well almost all and there are details but the main point is true).
The way in which non-biologists use the terms micro and macro are NOT the way in which biologists originally used them. So while you are right for practical purposes in this context so is Michah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2005 10:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024