Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1 of 65 (38300)
04-29-2003 5:27 AM


Dissolvable Best Evidence
(Stupid topic title didn't work - Admin, can you fix? The subject line was supposed to be in the title.) {Done 4/29/03 - Adminnemooseus}
This thread is yet another no-doubt vain attempt to get booboo to back up an assertion and/or follow through with yet another one of his challenges (from Why Inerrancy thread).
booboo writes:
Send me, (here at THIS forum) the most irrefutable, powerful evidence YOU have for evolution and I'd be glad to dissolve it in a few minutes.
Since I don't actually expect booboo to respond (he hasn't responded to a single post of mine yet) - you know what? I'm going to agree with him here - or at least his implication. There is NO one, single, irrefutable, powerful proof of evolution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
On the other hand, there are dozens if not hundreds of different lines of evidence from a myriad of different disciplines that, taken in toto, provide sufficient evidence that to deny the fact of organic evolution would be tantamount to denying the existence of light or gravity.
I thought that, in the absence of anything substantive from booboo, it might be interesting to poll the forum to see what we can come up with as a list of lines of evidence which we feel are the most compelling. Maybe it could be added as a FAQ to the site, or something. Not specific cases (such as a particular transitional fossil or the evolution of an antifreeze glycopeptide from a digestive enzyme in Arctic fish, etc), but rather the broader lines of evidence.
I'll start out with a few that I consider indicative, and then leave it open for others to add:
1. biogeography: why are species distributed around the globe as they are? Why are closely related species found geographically near to each other? Why are continental islands full of terrestrial endemics that are different from anywhere else - but whose nearest relatives are on the adjacent continental masses? Why are oceanic islands filled with endemic birds, insects and plant life, but few if any mammals?
2. convergent forms: Why are similar adaptations to specific environmental conditions found in vastly different organisms (i.e., placental wolves and marsupial Thylacinus cynocephalus) in widely separated parts of the globe? Why DOES the diversity of life fit so neatly into a nested hierarchy of similarity?
3. geology/paleontology: Why are the layers of rock so conformal around the world - to the point that you can correlate ages and sequences from one part of the world to another in many cases? Why are the sequences of fossils invariably time-correlated, regardless of where they are? Why don't we find mammals or angiosperms, for instance, in the oldest basement rocks?
4. molecular biology: Why can we often correlate relationships between organisms based on molecular biology with relationships based on morphology?
5. Ecology and population genetics: Why do we see variation from one end of a species range to the other, such that at the extremes they appear as completely different species? How can we explain ecological specialization, local extinctions, the effects of ecosystem degradation, the sanctuary effect, ecological zonation, niche partitioning, etc?
Just some first thoughts. Additions, comments welcome.
And for booboo: If you're feeling frisky, please pick ONE of the above to "dissolve in a few minutes."
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-29-2003]
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-29-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 04-29-2003 7:53 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 13 by wj, posted 05-01-2003 1:20 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 65 (38323)
04-29-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
04-29-2003 11:29 AM


Re: Dissolvable Best Evidence
NN: Brian's reply was completely tongue-in-cheek (note the winking Felix). He was "prophecying" booboo's response...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2003 11:29 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2003 12:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 65 (38559)
05-01-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
05-01-2003 1:37 AM


Biogeography
Thanks for your reply - the first one to anything I've posted to date. I will attempt to keep one topic per post, for simplicity and clarity. In addition, since this is one of those occasions where several hours are required to develop a response in each area, I didn't want you to think that I was unable to support any assertion I made in the OP.
Anyway: biogeography is a far cry from evidence for evolution. The divergence of similar animals between continents can just as easily be explained by the flood as it can by evolution. You see, supposing my viewpoint be true, the waters aswaged and thus created dry bridges between many of the continents for several hundred years (also, the ice age would have decreased the size of the oceans in the years following the flood).
You ignored the key questions in the OP section on biogeography. Permit me to repost it here.
quote:
1. biogeography: why are species distributed around the globe as they are? Why are closely related species found geographically near to each other? Why are continental islands full of terrestrial endemics that are different from anywhere else - but whose nearest relatives are on the adjacent continental masses? Why are oceanic islands filled with endemic birds, insects and plant life, but few if any mammals?
Biogeography is the study of the distribution of both living and extinct organisms, and of related patterns of variation over the earth in the numbers and kinds of living things. Although a particular type of habitat might occur in several widely scattered places throughout the world, species in one habitat are more closely related to nearby species in other habitats than to species in the same habitat elsewhere. In addition, species distribution is not uniform around the globe — some 25 regions contain over 70% of all primate and carnivore species diversity, for instance. (Sechrest et al, 2002) These are direct observations — not inference.
The easiest places to see it are on islands — which is why I specifically mentioned islands in the OP. There are direct observations that show the that the number of species on an island increases with island size and decreases with island distance to the mainland. Moreover, there are more endemics on islands that were never connected to the mainland (oceanic islands), than are present on islands that were once connected to continents by land bridges — as would be the sole case in your scenario. Finally, not only are there fewer total species per unit of land area on oceanic islands than on continental islands, but entire classes of organisms are absent from oceanic islands that are present on continental islands: there are no mammals, for instance, and only one frog (on New Zealand) that have ever been found on oceanic islands.
Your flood-land bridge scenario doesn’t explain the observed pattern of biodiversity.
A second and even more compelling observation from biogeography is related to the concept of endemism. An endemic species is one that is found in a restricted geographic area and nowhere else — regardless of whether the specific habitat type exists elsewhere. The island of St Helena in the south Atlantic is a case in point. The island is located some 1900 km from Africa and 2900 km from South America. It is volcanic, formed fairly recently by geological timescales, and has never been connected to any continent (it formed from a volcano off the mid-Atlantic ridge). It is completely surrounded by deep sea (about 4200 m), and hence could never have been connected by dry land to either continent — no matter how much sea level fluctuated during a putative flood. The island is home to over 40 endemic species of plants, including an unusual relative of the sunflower which I’ll get to in a moment. Isolated islands such as St. Helena show the action of several of the postulated mechanisms for evolution: ecological release, as colonizers move into vacant habitat; natural selection operating on initial (often minimal) population variation as a myriad of selection pressures create novel forms; and the population ecology mechanisms of dispersal and extinction. When St. Helena was discovered in the 1500’s, there were an estimated 70 species of flowering plants on the island — 60 of which (in ten genera) were endemic only to the island (Cronk, 1989). Two of these plants are extraordinary examples of evolution in action: the gumwood tree (Commidendrum robustum) is a member of the family Asterecidae — sunflowers and daisies — and the cabbage tree (Lachanodes arborea), also Asterecidae, but completely different morphology and habitat than gumwood. Both of these flowers have occupied and adapted to the tree niche on the island in the absence of any other plant in that category. Until the arrival of humans, terrestrial vertebrates were limited to four endemic bird varieties, three of which are now extinct. No mammals or reptiles existed on the island prior to the arrival of humans.
Biogeography explains the distribution of animals. Evolution explains their persistence, periodic extinction, and adaptation to novel environments. This joint effort has been tested — in the wild — by numerous biologists and ecologists. (for example, Case 1987). Moreover, the results of observations of population and ecological dynamics from island biogeography have been successfully translated to understanding of the effects of habitat fragmentation and ecosystem degradation in continental habitats (see, for instance, Templeton 2001, Terborgh 2001, Williams 1997, etc).
Your dissolving of the biogeography argument for evolution seems to have, itself, dissolved, as your alternative doesn’t explain the patterns observed in nature. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, does.
References:
Case TJ, Cody ML, 1987 Testing theories of island biogeography Amer. Sci. 75: 402-411
Cronk QCB, 1989, The past and present vegetation of St Helena J Biogeo 16:47-64
Sechrest W, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Konstant WR, Mittermeier RA, Purvis A, Rylands AB, Gittleman JL, 2002 Hotspots and the conservation of evolutionary history, PNAS 99:2067-2071
Templeton AR, Robertson RJ, Brisson J, Strasburg J, 2001, Disrupting evolutionary processes: The effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks, PNAS 98:5426-5432
Terborgh J, Lopez L, Nuez P, Rao M, Shahabuddin G, Orihuela G, Riveros M, Ascanio R, Adler GH, Lambert TD, Balbas L, 2001, Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments, Science 294:1923-1926
Williams SE, Pearson RG, 1997 Historical rainforest contractions, localized extinctions and patterns of vertebrate endemism in the rainforests of Australia's wet tropics, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264(1382): 709-16.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 1:37 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 65 (38570)
05-01-2003 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
05-01-2003 1:37 AM


Paleontolofy (sic)
Paleontolofy: if your side be true, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the polystrate fossils--there are hundreds of them, particularly in Nova Scotia, and they all indicate that the rock layers were set down at the same time. Have you ever been to Mt. St. Helens? I've seen the bases of the area, and the rock layers around the base of the mountain were created since the volcano erupted, yet they seem to represent the layers of rocks where geologists seem to claim are 'millions of years old.'
Once again, you have completely skipped over the relevant questions in the OP. In fact, in this case, you are dragging in a completely different topic. Since there were no fossils discovered at Mount St. Helens, I fail to see what that volcano has to do with paleontology.
Again, I will repost the OP section for you to address. Unless you address the specific topical areas I posted, it is impossible to continue the discussion of this point.
quote:
3. geology/paleontology: Why are the layers of rock so conformal around the world - to the point that you can correlate ages and sequences from one part of the world to another in many cases? Why are the sequences of fossils invariably time-correlated, regardless of where they are? Why don't we find mammals or angiosperms, for instance, in the oldest basement rocks?
However, to clarify your attempt at misdirection, when you refer to polystrate fossils — a term which, as far as I know, doesn’t exist in geology - are you discussing in situ or transported fossil trees (such as Specimen Ridge)? Or are you talking about bioturbation, cross bedded fossil animals, etc?
Layering around Mt. St. Helens is fascinating for pedological studies. With innumerable formations created over the past 40,000 years of fairly common eruptions, coupled with different depositions caused by tephra/ashfalls, pyroclastic flows, debris flows (avalanches), lahars (mudflows), glaciation, etc, it’s a living laboratory for geologists. Which particular rock layers were you referring to? You were a bit vague. Perhaps you could indicate from this graphic which deposits, layers you were referring to?
Here’s a nice photo showing some of the interesting features:
You’ll note that there are easily identifiable layers here — showing a sequence of events. For example, the lower rocky area represents glacial till, the next two up (orange and yellow) are pyroclastic flows, followed by several lahar deposits, and at the very top, by the 1980 lahar deposit. Are these the layers you’re referring to? (From here) If so, I’m not sure why you think they pose any kind of problem for geologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 1:37 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 65 (38591)
05-01-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
05-01-2003 1:37 AM


Molecular Biology
What is it about my OP that you seem incapable of addressing? Again, I find that I'm required to repost my original point that you failed to address:
quote:
4. molecular biology: Why can we often correlate relationships between organisms based on molecular biology with relationships based on morphology?
Somehow I don't see this response of yours as being very much of a direct refutation (or even a direct discussion) of what I posted:
Molecular biology: There is no reason to believe that the molecular similarities between animals are evidence of evolution. DNA are the building blocks of life--the Governor's Palace of Williamsburg and Tradoc Headquarters of Fort Monroe are both made of brick, yet that means they have a common creator--MAN! Also, if you are so into molecular biology, and IF evolution is true, then perhaps you could explain why the fern has 480 chromosomes (evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve, yet it is more complex at the molecular level than most of its "predecessors")
First, you drag in some nonsense about brick buildings, which not being living systems seems pretty silly - however, lpetrich has already addressed the fallacy here, so I'll let it past.
Second, you drag in some derived terrestrial vascular plant like a fern and claim that "evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve" and bring up chromosome number in (I assume) a modern fern as though that had some bearing on paleobotany or molecular biology. Needless to say, you provided strictly ZERO references for either of these claims. However, to forstall you wasting any more time on this line of argument, the actual development of terrestrial plants goes something like this: autotrophic photosynthetic prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) --> charophytes --> bryophytes (first terrestrial plants) --> sporophytes (vascular plants, like Cooksonia) --> lycophytes, sphenophytes (horsetails), and pteridophytes (ferns) (Qui 1999). There is currently some argument as to which one represents the earliest, although the current front runner is Marchantia polymorpha, a liverwort.
Now would you care to try your hand at actually addressing the molecular biology part, or are you going to continue to drag in not only irrelevant but erroneous, unsupported assertions?
Reference:
Qui YL, Palmer JD, 1999, Phylogeny of early land plants: insights from genes and genomes, Trends in Plant Science 4:26—30.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 1:37 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 65 (39907)
05-13-2003 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
05-01-2003 1:37 AM


Re: The process
booboocruise:
I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you are uninterested in actual discussion. Your message #14 was, I believe, addressed to me. I provided responses which you have utterly ignored, specifically messages 27, 29 and 33. I will assume from your deafening silence that your points have been adequately refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 1:37 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by John, posted 05-13-2003 9:41 AM Quetzal 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