Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 46 of 199 (28737)
01-09-2003 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by mark24
01-09-2003 6:26 AM


Dear mark,
Definitions again. My definition or yours? Anyway, what about something like 'intermediate or transtion forms between the phyla'. For evolutionism it would be nice to find them in the fossil record between cnidaria, mollusca, arthropoda, brachiopoda, echinodermata and vertebrata.
I am aware that some 'mammal-like' reptiles are taken as stratomorphic intermediates between reptiles and mammals. But it is not what I mean.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 01-09-2003 6:26 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 01-09-2003 7:47 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 47 of 199 (28738)
01-09-2003 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by peter borger
01-09-2003 7:17 AM


Peter,
quote:
Definitions again. My definition or yours?
Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 7:17 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 6:10 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 48 of 199 (28756)
01-09-2003 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
01-09-2003 7:47 AM


dear mark,
M: Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists.
PB: If a theory doesn't predict right than the theory isn't right. Right?
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 01-09-2003 7:47 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 01-10-2003 4:12 AM peter borger has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 199 (28771)
01-09-2003 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by peter borger
01-09-2003 4:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
E: I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it.
PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing.
Not really. By my judgement there are ample transitionals. Others, perhaps, will never be satisfied. However, assume we accept your premise, how do you explain the fossil record?
quote:
The rest (minor transitions) can be explained by the GUToB. It descibes perfectly what we see. We don't need the utter hypothetical model of evolution from microbe to man since it describes things that have never been observed.
You mean, except for the fact that there is a chain of organisms in between.
quote:
If you had a fossil record that contained the major transition forms than you had a reason to set up such theory. Since you have not, the theory is completely gratuitous.
Not at all. The transitions from earliest life forms to present diversity must be explained somehow.
quote:
And now even the NDT has fallen, so there is nothing left to believe the hype.
I was unaware of this event. Is it common knowledge? I know of no other viable theory that explains the fossil record. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 4:47 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 50 of 199 (28785)
01-10-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by peter borger
01-09-2003 6:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,
M: Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists.
PB: If a theory doesn't predict right than the theory isn't right. Right?
best wishes,
Peter

Er, yes, but the examples that are claimed to be borne out predictions must be in the context of the theory or they are not predictions of that theory, right? So define "transitional form" in the context of the ToE, why so coy? How can you say the theory is wrong because it hasn't predicted right, if you're not prepared to honestly look at in context transitionals? There is nothing wrong with the prediction, only if you are strawmanning such a prediction, as creationists are want to so, like transitional mammals must have had their jaws hanging off for millions of years because of the squamosal, quadrate et al ending up as middle ear components.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by peter borger, posted 01-09-2003 6:10 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-11-2003 8:18 AM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 51 of 199 (28851)
01-11-2003 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mark24
01-10-2003 4:12 AM


Peter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 01-10-2003 4:12 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-13-2003 8:35 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 52 of 199 (29033)
01-13-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
01-11-2003 8:18 AM


Dear Mark,
Maybe it's time for shaving?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-11-2003 8:18 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 01-14-2003 4:18 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 53 of 199 (29079)
01-14-2003 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by peter borger
01-13-2003 8:35 PM


Peter,
Why? I know the predicted intermediates exist, the only way you can deny such a thing is to parody the ToE's definition of "transitional" or "intermediate".
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-13-2003 8:35 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 5:04 AM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 54 of 199 (29083)
01-14-2003 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
01-14-2003 4:18 AM


Dear mark,
MP: Why? I know the predicted intermediates exist, the only way you can deny such a thing is to parody the ToE's definition of "transitional" or "intermediate".
PB: So why don't you make up the definition yourself?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 01-14-2003 4:18 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by mark24, posted 01-14-2003 10:00 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 55 of 199 (29093)
01-14-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by peter borger
01-14-2003 5:04 AM


Peter,
A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 5:04 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 9:44 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 56 of 199 (29146)
01-14-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by mark24
01-14-2003 10:00 AM


Dear mark,
Please, specify taxa.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mark24, posted 01-14-2003 10:00 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 01-15-2003 6:04 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 57 of 199 (29175)
01-15-2003 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by peter borger
01-14-2003 9:44 PM


Peter,
Any taxa, from species to kingdom.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 9:44 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 01-15-2003 9:34 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 58 of 199 (29228)
01-15-2003 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mark24
01-15-2003 6:04 AM


Dear Mark,
MP1: A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa.
MP2: Any taxa, from species to kingdom.
PB: Okay, King Philip Came Over From Great Spain.
&
From Talk-origins: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A:
Predictions of evolutionary theory:
Evolutionary theory predicts that fossils should appear in a temporal progression, in a nested hierarchy of lineages, and that it should be possible to link modern animals to older, very different animals.
PB: Is that all?
This is also predicted by the GUToB. nI expect the appearance of essential organisms first to prepare the earth for the coming of man.
From the EoT I would have expected this:
1) There are TFs between Kingdoms,
2) There are TFs between Phyla,
3) There are TFs between Classes,
4) There are TFs between Orders,
5) There are TFs between Families,
6) There are TFs between Genera,
7) There are TFs between Species.
At least these are some easy to check predictions. Let’s consider it a missed chance for the Talk-origin guys/evolutionism in general.
Talk-origin (continued):
In addition, the "punctuated equilibrium" model also predicts that new species should often appear "suddenly" (within 500,000 years or less) and then experience long periods of stasis.
PB: THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE GUToB PREDICTS. It is however NOT evolutionism. Evolve = slowly developing, like a story plot develops. It is from Latin: evolvere.
Talk-origin (cont):
Where the record is exceptionally good, we should find a few local, rapid transitions between species.
PB: HAY, THAT IS ALSO PREDICTED BY GUToB! (Hay, hands of from my GUToB ). If all information was already present in the archetype this model is easy to conceive by shuffling of preexisting DNA elements. However, these elements do not form spontaneously in the genome from scratch and can only reside in the genome upon permanent selective constraint since they are redundancies! And redundancies are unstable! Therefore the GUToB predicts that even the simplest organisms have a complete set of DNA repair enzymes).
Talk-origin (cont): The "phyletic gradualism" model predicts that most species should change gradually throughout time, and that where the record is good, there should be many slow, smooth species-to-species transitions.
PB: This is evolutionism as it has been proposed originally. The Gould and Eldridge hypothesis has no molecular genetic foundation. As we know now, redundancies required for such model CANNOT reside stably in the genome without selective constraint. They will get lost/inactivated over time.
Talk-origin (cont): These two models are not mutually exclusive -- in fact they are often viewed as two extremes of a continuum -- and both agree that at least some species-to-species transitions should be found.
PB: There are NO two models. There is only one and that is the gradual model as originally proposed by Darwin. As an evolutionary theory the G&E model can be completely refuted, since it has no scientific foundation. It could be replaced by GUToB, though.
Well, dear Mark, these are my comments on so called evo-predictions concerning the fossil record.
I am sure you don't agree.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 01-15-2003 6:04 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 01-16-2003 3:41 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 121 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:41 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 59 of 199 (29247)
01-16-2003 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
01-15-2003 9:34 PM


Peter,
So, you agree then, transitional fossils bear out predictions made by the ToE?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 01-15-2003 9:34 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by peter borger, posted 01-16-2003 7:31 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 60 of 199 (29312)
01-16-2003 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
01-16-2003 3:41 AM


Dear mark,
If you can demonstrate
1) TFs between Kingdoms,
2) TFs between Phyla,
3) TFs between Classes,
4) TFs between Orders,
5) TFs between Families,
6) TFs between Genera,
7) TFs between Species
it would be very good for evolutionism.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 01-16-2003 3:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 01-16-2003 7:57 PM peter borger has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024