|
Author
|
Topic: Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base: ... The reordering of the fossil distribution diagrams according to similarity and joining with arbitary length dotted lines is a forcing of the data to an ideology regardless of the fact that there is some ordering of fossils with similarity and complexity. Paleontology is immensely interesting, and its methods of cladograms and distribution diagrams very logical but the idea that the fossil record demonstrates macroevoltuion is complete myth.
One teensy little problem (among some others that we can address later) here, TB. You make the typical creationist error in thinking that evolution should explain what we don't see. Quite to the contrary, it must explain what we do see in the fossil record. And it does. Creationism on the other hand, does not even come close, unless you wish to violate various physical laws and modern principles. For example, trees that have been floating around in a flood surge should violate Stokes Law and settle in the water faster than clastic sediments. This is one that TC has come up with on another thread. Now, if you want to be an absolutist (which of course, you do), then of course it's all conjecture and we should just wait until all fossils have been unearthed before explaining the fossil record. That puts you in the driver's seat in promoting a myth, since science can be ignored until some indefinite date in the future. I am sorry, but once again, that is not how we do things in science. We push back frontiers, we do not cringe from them.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We accept the fossil distributions as fact and propose that the orderings are Flood orderings of created kinds living in mulitple ecologies. Some of it makes immediate sense (invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles/mammals, birds) and much of the rest is simply a proposal.
Ah, good. Then you can give us a mechanism for the fossil ordering. Please do so. Be sure to explain how flowering plants ended up at higher stratigraphic levels than dinosaurs and gymnosperms. If you can't do it - back to the drawing board! Evolution does explain it.
quote:
The point of my post is that, unknown to the layman, in the evolutionary scheme, any fossil distribution can accomodate any cladogram!
Well, ultimately, of course. That is the whole idea of evolution: common ancestry. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that you can link dinosaurs with primates? What exactly does this have to do with evolution, then?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
By horizontally reordering the fossil distribution diagram according to the anatomical similarity tree, and drawing arbitary length dotted lines, the fossil record can be made consistent with any anatomical similarity tree. The lifeforms in the tree could be swaped and you could still accomodate it. It's just a dot to dot exercise that assumes evolution rather than demonstrates it.
Of course it assumes evolution! Evolution works! If it didn't, then we would know about it soon enough when the results of new work using evolution as a premise didn't mesh with reality. I hate to rain on your parade, but there is virtually no one trying to 'prove evolution' these days. In general, we have gone beyond that and moved on to other things. You see, the whole idea is to advance science, not stagnate while trying to prove to every absolutist that evolution occurred.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The data doesn't suggest at all that there is a lineage of one hundred milion years connecting Brachyopidae and five other groups of amphibians to lower forms. It's only the assumption of evolution that requires that line to be drawn in.
No the data does not. Evolutionary principles allow us to propose such a lineage. Otherwise, there is no explanation. Evolution does not require this specific line.
quote:
As you point out in your post, you all assume evolution is proven but a modern look at what the fossil distribution actually looks like shows that mainstream paleontology always was a fitting to an ideology.
Evolution explains the fossil record. And no, we do not assume evolution proven. We assume that it works. So far there have been no contradictions to this. And what better way to test it than using it as a premise? If you have something better, please let us know. And no, the fossil record was recognized before evolutionary theory was applied to explain it. You seem to have everything backward.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What I am showing you is that the assumption of evolution requires vast ghost lineages of up to hundreds of millions of years to be introduced for multiple sub-groups of organisms in every group you care to check.
Actually, you are showing us that evolution can be a useful tool in interpreting the fossil record. It allows us to interpret the origin of some of these organisms. From here we go on to test that lineage and use it to interpret others. Simple!
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The lines are a premises as you put it. Your tests have failed. There are systematically no transitional forms along any of those dotted lines.
No, no, no. The lines are interpretations based on using the tool of evolution.
quote:
Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great premise. It's just that you're fooling yourself if you think those dotted lines prove anything.
That is not the idea. The lines are a possible explanation.
quote:
The creation/flood scenario is equally viable.
Not at all. If so, please answer all of the questions that you have ignored over the last year...
quote:
Some organisms with similar anatomy are buried in similar strata whereas other sets of organisms with similar anatomy are separated by thousands of feet of strata.
Your point being?
quote:
Evolution most certainly does require the dotted lines from Brachyopidae et al to drop one hundred milion years down and extend below Eryopidae et al due to the forcing of the cladogram onto the fossil distribution data.
Again, no. The lines are drawn by one person who has some degree of confidence in it. He could have chosen to draw no line at all.
quote:
Eryopidae et al are more derived than Brachyopidae even though they occur one hundred million years earlier.
Again, no. You see a proposed lineage. One that makes more sense than just ignoring the data that we have.
quote:
Hence the one hundred million year ghost lineages from Brachyopidae et al in the evolutioanry scenario.
Again, no. They are permissible in the evolutionary scenario. I understand that you have a PhD, but you sure seem confused.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
e: It allows us to interpret the origin of some of these organisms. From here we go on to test that lineage and use it to interpret others. Simple! TB: All you've done is show us how evolution occured if it occured. But it may not have occured. That is what this forum is about.
No. Evolution was a premise in this study. It does not show how evolution occurred. It shows how the data can be interpreted in the light of evolutionary theory. It is a story that makes some sense.
quote:
Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested?
They are tested periodically by new fossil discoveries. Sometimes the lineages are right, sometimes they are wrong. Either way it has no bearing on the validity of evolution, only on the availability of data.
quote:
These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.
And your point is?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You can play semantics if you like. I stand by my statment that evolution reuires vast ghost lineages as displayed in every fossil distribution diagram which has evoltuionary dotted lines drawn in.
Perhaps you are saying that there must be an ancestor under evolutionary tenets? Is this what you mean? If so, then why do you not need ancestors under a creationist scenario? Where did the organisms that have no known ancestors come from? Aren't you even a bit curious? You see? Evolutionary thinking is used to determine or predict such relationships. If not for evolution, we'd have to say, "Oh well, these critters just poofed into existence in the Jurassic..." Not very intellectually appealing to me, but probably pretty comfortable for an absolutist.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In our sceanrio the created kinds diversified via microevolutionary processes, presumably before and after the flood. The flood itself gives only a snapshot view of life via the geo-col, not a time series.
Oh, then you have ghost lineages, too! But yours are short. So where are your transitionals? And why is it then wrong to look at the fossil record as a snapshot?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.
You mean you have 'ghost mechanisms' in addition to ghost lineages? And why do we have to have proof while you need not claim any yourself? Seems like you are kind of stacking the deck here, TB. And we are not talking about approximate sorting here. We are talking 100% precise sorting...
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
How do you sort by biogeography when you require great masses of water washing down sediments from high ground and transport of those sediments in some cases over long distances? When one of your claims falsifies another as here you should realize that your whole thesis is fatally flawed.
Randy Our scenario definetely predicts the marine, wet-land, coastal, in-land, highland orderings roughly consistent with the evidence. Sea-floordwelling species will be buried lower than mobile species.
What? There is no such ordering! Please be specific. So tell us how angiosperms outran dinosaurs to escape from the flood. Or were they more intelligent? Please keep up the story, though, TB. It gets better all the time. [This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2003]
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The key issue, that I did consider yesterday but decided not to complicate my answer with, is whether amphibians would be generally buried in their habitat or transported seaward or landward (or escaped landward). A Cretaceous first appearence of mangroves suggests that the amphibians were transported from their habitats and buried seaward. This is clearly a post-observation comment. In our scenario it suggests that freshwater flooding from highlands preceded marine innundation leaving mangroves higher than their fauna. Of course one would expect transport of flora as well as fauna and we would have to argue that the devil is in the details. I do not claim any detailed predictive power in this scheme at this point.
TB, you stretch where evolution easily grasps.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Where you draw long dotted lines, we suggest transport, escape, ecology and sorting. Not too different.
Specifics please. We cannot debate these vague assertions about fantastic mechanisms. You might begin by telling us where we find these mechanisms in action today.
quote:
You didn't really predict that flowering plants come after amphibians! The raw data told both of us that.
Of course not. That was not the point. The point is that evolution explains why this happened.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
Message 48 of 58 (29225)
01-15-2003 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by wj
01-14-2003 11:53 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Or were the mangroves able to outrun the gymnosperms and amphibians? Truly impressive as presumably the mangroves started at a disadvantage being on the waters edge and therefore having to run further uphill.
Obviously this is where intelligence comes into the equation. Mangroves were able to plan ahead and build this ark, you see and.... I was also wondering what happened to all traces of life and civilization before Noah? We don't see much of it represented in the Pre(Flood)cambrian record... Even with all of the unanswered and unanswerable questions, I'm sure that TB will tell you, with a straight face, that his model if better than mainstream explanations. This just cracks me up!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by wj, posted 01-14-2003 11:53 PM | | wj has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Laugh away Edge. I must similarly confess to cracking up every time I read Gould's famous 'tradesecret' quote. The idea that an entire discipline would have a secret that utterly destroys the entire basis of their paradigm and yet continue going in to their work places each day is highly amusing but also very sad.
It gets especially funny when I ask a creationist why (if Gould actually meant what this quote says) was Gould still an evolutionist. There has never been an answer to this question...
quote:
When I first read paleontology monographs I was sure that all those dotted lines were littered with transitional forms or at least two or three per line. When I finally realized the truth of it, that none of the dotted lines represented actual data my jaw dropped and I suddenly realized in what sense Gould was writing.
My jaw dropped (well, not really) when I realized that you don't understand what a dotted line means in geology...
quote:
Gould was writing literally. I had given mainstream science so much benefit of the doubt I never accepted what the creationist books said or even what Gould et al had said. Only now that I have seen the data with my own eyes do I understand how it all works and how Gould could possibly have said what he said.
Well, he probably didn't. This sounds like one of those out-of-context quotes. It has at least been used in a way which Gould never meant. Perhaps you could quote Gould exactly and give us a reference.
quote:
You ridicule our faith in the flood (distribution mechanisms in particular) but in your scenario you have systemaitc dotted lines that link not to observed forms but to more dotted lines. Your faith is at least as great as ours.
No way. I have no faith at all. All I have is evidence and an explanation that works. Now, let's get back to your mechanisms. Please explain why flowering plants are found higher in the fossil record than dinosaurs or gymnosperms...
|
™ Version 4.2