IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

HiYou said
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
ToE predicts "gradual" progressive evolution from simple to complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------ToE doesn't predict progression from simple to complexIt only concludes that the things we observe ( the fossils / the
actual biodiversity etc ... ) are the actual SURVIVORS ---> those who posses ( at this moment ) the ( potential )possibilities to produce progenitures which will be (eventually ) fertile ( succesfull ) in the futureFurthermore
You can only conclude that a phenotype is "in balance with his actual environment "( ---> it works--> it is a set-up of components that performs etc ... ) or that it has reached a "goal "( it's alive now ) when the PROCES ( which always takes time ) to reach the present state , has reached the now ( at least in your observing mind ) ... ... IOW the adjectives "progressive" and "degressive " are only evaluations of OUTPUTS of "processings" ---> not the reverseprogressive/ regressive is only a characteristic derived from the
reached conclusion ...For Sure there is a ( one direction ) arrow of time ---> it is flowing from past to the future : and it comes together in the now , which is already gone when we try to catch itFossils are just some ( preserved ) snapshots
Present biodiversity just an horizontal "slice "of the phylogenetic treeGradualism is the film ---> just all the small ( very slowly changing )series of photos
---> if you compare the first and the last " still " pictures of a movie (taking for example 2 hours to project ) they are not at all " slightly "different .... They are VERY DIFFERENT ....
You just missed the in-betweens --> it doesn't mean they weren't
thereSame goes in " recordings " of repetitive minimal music
Some of these performers just "repeat the same thing "( a sequence
--> generally a two bars figure ) in a loop ---> many people find
this boring ---> however if you " record " such a performance and
you only listen to the beginning and the end of the piece ---> you will remark that it is not at all the "same thing " you end up with two completely different sequences ( even the number of bars can
change )Not finding all the " intermediate steps "( or simply the impossibility to scan them all --> there are really too many of them ) doesn't mean that they don't exist ---> There can be a "butterfly effect "Sure from simple to complex can also be "defined "( that is approached from another "perspective " ) as
--> progression in the organisation on more higher levels
kind of some "fractional " manner ( see fractionals / Mandelbrot ... etc --> any search engine will do )?--->Molecular --> protocellular ---> uniCellular --> multicellular ---> social insect states ----> ?-->Starting from "simple thing " to " complex thing " ?(progression )
--> Starting from " complex thing " to simple thing (regression )
--> or all kinds of combinations of both ? ( Backtracking for example )Seems ALL to be plausible propositions , from a theoretical point of view
( I personnally like to think that there ARE backtracking strategies in evolution --> of course it is a proposition based on analogies with certain methodologies in problem solving , and I have no biological or genetical evidences to back it up ( this is no CLAIM only a suggestion )BUT WE MUST NEVER FORGET that we only have " real " acces to the (preserved ) outputs that are still around and some snapshots ...CIAO

According to Tsjok:"ToE doesn't predict progression from simple to complex.It only concludes that the things we observe ( the fossils / the
actual biodiversity etc ... ) are the actual SURVIVORS ---> those who posses ( at this moment ) the ( potential )possibilities to produce progenitures which will be (eventually ) fertile ( succesfull ) in the future "PB:
So, according to ToE "The the organisms that we observe are the survivors".In other words 'the living creatures are alive'.Brilliant observation!! (Talking about pleonasms)Do we really have to take a theory that does these kind of predictions serious?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-06-2003]

dear Edge,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Well, gee, I wonder why we find only find carbon-based life forms (since you like simplistic arguments). Maybe they are just fakes. Typical of creationists, you would rather try to make up a story that focusses more on what is not known that what IS known, and at the same time ignoring some important information that is also known.PB: Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions? The question is why did we find 4 A. lithographica? Similarly, why do paleontologists always find T rex? And never a slightly different one, ie transitionform to ... yeah what? It is against odds. Against science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them.PB: Other lines of evidence? Other TFs? Known ages? Elaborate a bit please.Edge: Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe...PB: and that's all it is: a believe (Disperse the meme!). Glad you concur.Edge: ...that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.PB: As demonsrated, the hypothesis is NOT workable on the molecular level. So, the hypothesis is wrong.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

PB: Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?

---

Perhaps the questions are the problem.

quote:

---

The question is why did we find 4 A. lithographica? Similarly, why do paleontologists always find T rex?

---

Ah, now I get it! Probably because we will never have a complete fossil record. Only snapshots. THere are likely other answers to this question as well, but I don't have much time right now. Can you guess what they are?

quote:

---

And never a slightly different one, ie transitionform to ... yeah what? It is against odds. Against science.

---

Tell me, why do you think they are called 'transitional' fossils? Does this help?

quote:

---

Edge: As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them.

​

PB: Other lines of evidence? Other TFs? Known ages? Elaborate a bit please.

---

Oh, for instance: why are probable transitionals of the whale evolution and amphibian to reptile series found at just the right time in the geological record? A coincidence, I suppose?

quote:

---

Edge: Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe...

​

PB: and that's all it is: a believe (Disperse the meme!). Glad you concur.

---

Yes, you belief in a believe. Very good. I believe in gravity, also.

quote:

---

Edge: ...that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.

​

PB: As demonsrated, the hypothesis is NOT workable on the molecular level. So, the hypothesis is wrong.

---

But it works on the realistic level of explaining the fossil record. I daresay there is something about the molecular level that you do not understand. Perhaps your hypothesis is wrong? Nah!!!!

quote:

---

PB: So, according to ToE "The the organisms that we observe are the survivors".

​

In other words 'the living creatures are alive'.

​

Brilliant observation!! (Talking about pleonasms)

​

Do we really have to take a theory that does these kind of predictions serious?

---

Well, some content was probably lost in trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand the concept...

"ToE doesn't predict progression from simple to complex. "It isn't about " predictions "
it isn't even strictly about ToE
It's all about terminologies
and about the multiple meaning of words , used in public and general
speech ....Saying that ToE is "predicting" progression from simple to complex
( that there is a direction ) or for that matter ;from complex to simple /or a combination --->
is a vague statement as long as you are not describing what you mean by complexity or by simplicityAs far as I understand it some "Living creatures "are more complex
in their organisation of components than other simplier ones "
However each of the singular components are very complex
structures themselves
AND the( ecological )interactions of the "living creatures " in the whole biosphere is very complex tooWhat kind of complexity you are talking about
---> complexity increase in the species ? complexitie increase in the genotypes complexity increase in the phenotypes ? complexity in the design complexity in the planning ? Increase /decrease of informationON WHAT LEVEL OF ORGANISATION IS A STRUCTURE MORE OR LESS COMPLEXToE;
I don't know what toe is saying /predicting
Talk about that with the experts ....Creationist however --->ToE is saying ( even predicts )
----> etc
But ToE certaintly doesn't say
that the cell is "simplier "then the human being
nor does it predict that the living things ( you call them creatures
I call them survivors ---> or the actual products of ongoing
causal chains ---> well it's all chemistry and nanothechnologies , anyway )
in the future will be complexer or better or worserWorser or better ?
or complex or simple ?
or good or bad ?
must all be there ---> otherwise it is impossible to say there is a
plan or a directed design or
whatever intelligently plotted scenariosSimply that there is a movement( be it progressive or regressive or
a combination of both ) and ToE tries to find the mechanism behind
it
all without ,invoking supernatural imperatives ....I do not make"brilliant observations "
(by the way I don't mind sarcasm , I even appreciate it )
but
I just read in your posts
words , words , words and again words .... "
I think you are brilliant
--> you should try novel-writing and poetry .... ( or maybe you
do it already ... all the time , Bravo )Sure
'the living creatures are alive'.by definition
is that a problem ?Something is a survivor because it is the last step in a chain
of descendance and , sure it is alive and well now ...So we can
label it alive ( or maybe it is a virus that is
both alife and death ---> but nevertheless a survivor ---> or
maybe some "created "parasite kind ( maybe by a devil? )
with no ancestry ? )

Perter B,

quote:

---

Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?

---

You have to be shittin' me!For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2003]

Well, some content was probably lost in trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand the concept......explain the concept...Peter

Tob...Cap....

Page, you are eager for another devastating blow?
Let me know and I will discuss your socalled best evidence for common descent in detail and I will once more demonstrate your short sighted vision.Masochist?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Page, you are eager for another devastating blow?
Let me know and I will discuss your socalled best evidence for common descent in detail and I will once more demonstrate your short sighted vision.

​

Masochist?

---

Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils? I guess I can see why you'd want to change the subject and avoid further embarassment. Better just to ignore the data, eh?

dear Edge,Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing. The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have? A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.I guess I can see why you'd want to change the subject and avoid further embarassment. Better just to ignore the data, eh?PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me. If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).Anyway, present the evidence.Best wishes,
Peter

Hi MarkMP:
You have to be shittin' me!For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.PB:
I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'Brilliant, isn't it Best wishes,
Peter"Occam's razor probably is for shaving too".

quote:

---

Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?

​

Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.

---

Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.

quote:

---

The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?

---

We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird. We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification? You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.

quote:

---

A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.

---

You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?

quote:

---

PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.

---

You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?

quote:

---

If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).

---

I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.

quote:

---

Anyway, present the evidence.

---

This has been done. You have not responded. I am not going to go back on a wild goose chase and dredge up old posts meant for you.

Peter,The argument of the fossil record's incompleteness as evidence for your position is specious. The supposed lack of transitional forms has two good reasonings behind it. 1) The fact that everything that dies doesn't become fossilized 2) Evolutionary change is episodic. By the way, Paleontologists have discovered many examples of transitional forms. If you have time I recomend you read:Thewissen, J. G. M. and M. Aria 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-12.Evolution is a fact: it is the mechanism that is open to debate.By the way, this is my first post but hopefully not my last.