Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 58 (29169)
01-15-2003 2:29 AM


My main problem, in general, with TB's 'flood model' is
that in order for it to fit the evidence that we all agree
exists it requires large numbers of convoluted sub-theories
and is still full of holes.
Fitting evolution to the same data requires little more than
the evolutionary concept, the data, and a few dotted lines with
a note to fill in as more data is uncovered.
Which seems more likely to any rational human without an ingrained
pre-conception that their mythology MUST be correct?

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


Message 47 of 58 (29224)
01-15-2003 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
01-14-2003 11:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-14-2003 11:48 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 10:06 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 58 (29233)
01-15-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
01-15-2003 8:56 PM


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.
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. 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.
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.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 01-15-2003 8:56 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 01-16-2003 9:05 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-17-2003 4:51 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2003 3:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 57 by Peter, posted 01-20-2003 6:48 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 50 of 58 (29319)
01-16-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
01-15-2003 10:06 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 51 of 58 (29333)
01-17-2003 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
01-15-2003 10:06 PM


TB,
As I recall, we've had this debate before. It concluded with you having "faith" that the flood caused fossil distribution, despite counter examples being made for every proposed mechanism.
Have faith, by all means, but please don't pretend that observation of all fossils/taxa is actually being used as evidence. It isn't. It sounds good when you use some examples, but is directly contradicted when taking the whole body of evidence into consideration (seed ferns, shelly fauna, angiosperms, etc).
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-17-2003 7:32 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 52 of 58 (29353)
01-17-2003 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
01-17-2003 4:51 AM


Dear Mark,
You say:
As I recall, we've had this debate before.
I say:
But that's what it is and always will be. An endless story. Maybe we should program a computer to spawn words and sentences at random and let it go on for ever and ever. It would not only produce a whole lot of nonsense --all mailings on this board, mailings on every board on internet, mailings ever to be produced by man-- it would also produce the complete work of Shakespear --not only one or two or ten or hundred, but millions of volumes....with and without typo's, with and without punctuated with nonsense--, also the work of Newton, Huygens, Galileo, Freud, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Einstein, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins, evolutionism, all theories ever invented by man and all rebuttals of all theories ever invented by man and all rebuttals of rebuttals of all theories invented by man and all rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of all theories invented by man and all rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of all theories ever invented by man and al rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of theories ever to be invented by man and all rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of......., and rebutalls thereof and rebuttals thereof, and rebuttals thereof, etcetera.............
That would be nice, isn't it?
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-17-2003 4:51 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 01-17-2003 8:02 AM peter borger has replied

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


Message 53 of 58 (29359)
01-17-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by peter borger
01-17-2003 7:32 AM


Peter,
quote:
As I recall, we've had this debate before.
I say:
But that's what it is and always will be. An endless story.
TB & I have had this same debate before, rather than this debate has occurred before.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by peter borger, posted 01-17-2003 7:32 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by peter borger, posted 01-17-2003 8:09 AM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 54 of 58 (29360)
01-17-2003 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
01-17-2003 8:02 AM


But wouldn't it be nice, Mark?
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 01-17-2003 8:02 AM mark24 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 58 (29402)
01-17-2003 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
01-15-2003 10:06 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]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. [/QUOTE]
But that is certainly NOT what Gould meant at all.
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. 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.
[\QUOTE]
That runs into one BIG problem. It isn't what Gould was talking about at all. Gould was attacking an extreme gradualist view which was at the time assumed in paleontology. He was talking about a lack of transitional fossils between a species and other species immediately descended from it. He and Eldredge went on to apply evolutionary theory to the problem and produced the original version of Punctuaed Equilibria.
Gould himself later said that transitional fossils between higher taxa were "abundant".
[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.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-15-2003][/B]
That isn't true either. Your problems are far worse because there is so much data against your view. The problem of "ghost lineages" is due to a lack of data - the equivalent of an "argument from silence". And an argument that has proven unreliable in the past. Michael Behe used to point to the absence of transitional fossils for whales as a problem. Then in the '90s those missing fossils were found. So there is a recent example where the problem was not even the fossil record, but just our limited knowledge of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-20-2003 6:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 58 (29636)
01-20-2003 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
01-17-2003 3:03 PM


Paul K
But that is certainly NOT what Gould meant at all.
I disagree. The distribution diagrams show that not only are gaps systematic but the dotted lines don't even join up to anything other than more dotted lines. Gould meant it literally.
That runs into one BIG problem. It isn't what Gould was talking about at all. Gould was attacking an extreme gradualist view which was at the time assumed in paleontology. He was talking about a lack of transitional fossils between a species and other species immediately descended from it. He and Eldredge went on to apply evolutionary theory to the problem and produced the original version of Punctuaed Equilibria.
I kmnow all about PE. PE was required becasue of the distinctness of the fossil groups.
Gould himself later said that transitional fossils between higher taxa were "abundant".
And I fully agree with him with the proviso of inverted commas around the word 'transitional'! Whether we talk from fish to amphibian to reptile or within orders you can get apparent transitonals but they are distinct organisms. They are simply organisms buried in a pattern of sea-floor to marine to aquatic to land. The more similar the closer they are vertically!
The crown jewel of transitonals is the mammalian reptile sequence. Look what evolutionists say about it:
' . . . each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species . . .' Tom Kemp, 'The Reptiles that Became Mammals', New Scientist 92:583 (1982)
You said:
Your problems are far worse because there is so much data against your view. The problem of "ghost lineages" is due to a lack of data - the equivalent of an "argument from silence". And an argument that has proven unreliable in the past.
I have been at pains to point out that the ghost lineage problem is a systematic one for six seperate groups only because of evolutioanry assumptions about three other groups. You can believe the problem will go away if you want.
Michael Behe used to point to the absence of transitional fossils for whales as a problem. Then in the '90s those missing fossils were found. So there is a recent example where the problem was not even the fossil record, but just our limited knowledge of it.
Your supposed transitonals here are weaker than those of the reptile-mammal transition.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2003 3:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2003 8:51 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 57 of 58 (29638)
01-20-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
01-15-2003 10:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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.

It's not faith, it's supposition awaiting new evidence for
confirmation or refutation (mainly the latter).
It's how science is conducted isn't it?
i) Make some theory based upon data
ii) See if that theory can apply to other data
iii) Investigate to see if data can be found that refutes the theory
iv) back to (i)
That's not faith ... nor is it driven by faith or a pre-concieved
notion of what happened. It is driven by the data.
Darwin proposed the ToE based upon his observations, and no-one
to date has put forward anything like a global refutation. Some
aspects have been shown in error and amended or discarded,
but the theory as a whole still carries weight because it fits
the extant data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 58 (29649)
01-20-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
01-20-2003 6:33 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Paul K
But that is certainly NOT what Gould meant at all.
I disagree. The distribution diagrams show that not only are gaps systematic but the dotted lines don't even join up to anything other than more dotted lines. Gould meant it literally.
[\QUOTE]
Even here you are relying on Faith. If you want to know what Gould was talking about you should refer to Gould's writings. Why don't you ? Because you know that I am right ?
How about :
"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasonsgeological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
(Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money)
[QUOTE]
That runs into one BIG problem. It isn't what Gould was talking about at all. Gould was attacking an extreme gradualist view which was at the time assumed in paleontology. He was talking about a lack of transitional fossils between a species and other species immediately descended from it. He and Eldredge went on to apply evolutionary theory to the problem and produced the original version of Punctuaed Equilibria.
I kmnow all about PE. PE was required becasue of the distinctness of the fossil groups.
[\QUOTE]
It was also predicted by evolutionary theory. Even Darwin got close to it. The whole point of proposing PE was that paleontologists were forcing their interpretations into an extreme gradualist view which had no sound foundations in the theory it was supposedly based in. In their original paper Eldredge and Gould make it very clear that their view is derived from Mayr's work on speciation.
[QUOTE]
Gould himself later said that transitional fossils between higher taxa were "abundant".
And I fully agree with him with the proviso of inverted commas around the word 'transitional'! Whether we talk from fish to amphibian to reptile or within orders you can get apparent transitonals but they are distinct organisms. They are simply organisms buried in a pattern of sea-floor to marine to aquatic to land. The more similar the closer they are vertically!
[\QUOTE]
Which raises the question of why the dating of rocks does not show this progression. At all. Why don't we run out of marine fossils where the amphibians first appear ? The distribution of trilobites is another problem - why don't we find them sorted by their life-style - all sea-bottom dwellers in one strata, all free-swimming species in another ?
It seems that even here you face a problem far more serious than the ghost lineages.
[QUOTE] The crown jewel of transitonals is the mammalian reptile sequence. Look what evolutionists say about it:
' . . . each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species . . .' Tom Kemp, 'The Reptiles that Became Mammals', New Scientist 92:583 (1982)
[\QUOTE]
A New Scientist article 20 years old ? A couple of facts you omit to mention is that it is generally accepted that we cannot reliably identify direct ancestors or descendants without the very sort of data that Gould says is so rare - intermediates between species. Another is that the fossil record is not that good - we do not have every or even most species. So even if your quote is entirely accurate today it is no great surprise.
On the other hand there is a feature of these fossils that is very telling against creationism. We do see a very good sequence showing how the mammalian jaw evolved from the reptilian - something that appeared unlikely enough for some creationists to proclaim it impossible. Why, assuming creationism, should creatures with an intermediate jaw even exist ?
In short you are using what is at best very weak evidence (if it is evidence at all) to dismiss much stronger evidence. And you claim that your opponents are relying on faith !
quote:
You said:
Your problems are far worse because there is so much data against your view. The problem of "ghost lineages" is due to a lack of data - the equivalent of an "argument from silence". And an argument that has proven unreliable in the past.
I have been at pains to point out that the ghost lineage problem is a systematic one for six seperate groups only because of evolutioanry assumptions about three other groups. You can believe the problem will go away if you want.
[\QUOTE]
Whether or not it goes away depends on whether the fossils are found. I have reason to believe that in some cases it will be since we have past cases where it has happened. Surely it would require a lot of faith to assume that we will never discover any more significant fossils.
But as I say at present you have the equivalent of an argument from silence. YOu need to develop it more to even have a good argument. And even then you cannot honestly make the claim that your opponents have more faith than you without addressing the weakensses in your position. Misrepresenting Gould is hardly a good way to go about either.
[QUOTE]
Michael Behe used to point to the absence of transitional fossils for whales as a problem. Then in the '90s those missing fossils were found. So there is a recent example where the problem was not even the fossil record, but just our limited knowledge of it.
Your supposed transitonals here are weaker than those of the reptile-mammal transition.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-20-2003][/B]
Indeed they are. But they are still very good transitionals. They still represent an example where your argument failed. They still represent a successful prediction of evolution - a prediction that creationism could not make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-20-2003 6:33 AM Tranquility Base 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