Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Population Genetics
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 90 (364002)
11-15-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
11-15-2006 9:54 PM


Re: False problem caused by false model.
To repeat RAZD's point, we know that the model is incorrect because in reality we do know that evolution has occurred, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that all known species share a common ancestal species, and, in particular, humans and other apes share a common ancestor that lived less than a dozen million years ago. If you want to dispute the evidence then there are threads for that, but most scientists recognize that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Therefore, any model that claims otherwise must have one or more serious flaws.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2006 9:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 90 (364105)
11-16-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2006 1:37 PM


The abuse of models.
quote:
Likewise, RAZD simply saying, "the math is wrong, its all wrong," doesn't explain how or why.
RAZD doesn't have to explain how or why. The overwhelming abundance of data provides conclusive evidence that common descent is the correct explanation for features in the world that we see around us. Evolution happened, and humans evolved from earlier primates. Any math that shows otherwise is flawed, either in the mathematic manipulations or in the assumptions that went into the model.
It is like in mathematics (my field). If I claim to have proven a new theorem and someone else shows an example that contradicts the theorem, then she does not have to show me where my error lies; she has done her part in demonstrating that my "theorem" is false. It becomes my job to find my error and see if I can correct it.
This is how it works in science (and I have also done some scientific modelling). Models rarely prove or disprove theories. Models are used to see whether or not we understand the unseen processes that drive the phenomena under question. Whatever Haldane's Dilemma is supposed to do, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the descent of humans from earlier primates is true. The truth of the descent of humans from earlier primates can only by determined by looking at the actual physical evidence. At best, Haldane's calculations can only be used to check whether scientists understand the mechanisms that led to the evolution of humans.
If Haldane's Dilemma has any validity (and I am not saying that it does), then it is up to the people making this claim to figure out why the predictions of the calculations are at odds with reality. It is up to them to try to figure out where in the calculations they have gone wrong, which assumptions are incorrect, or, at the most extreme case, what are the correct processes that drove human evolution.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2006 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 90 (390467)
03-20-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by zcoder
03-20-2007 1:37 PM


quote:
So I hope you can understand my delima about facts of evolution.
Yes, I can. Your dilemma stems from your "facts" being untrue.
-
quote:
I found out that at a certain level (rocks corresponding to the \u201cPre Cambrian Era\u201d) the geologic layers
contain almost no fossils. The few that exist are those from cellular and multicellular creatures such as algae or
bacteria
This is untrue. There are plenty of Precambrian fossils, with plenty of candidates for precursors of Cambrian fauna. What is more, genetic and molecular evidence shows the seperate lineages of extant phyla extending well before the Cambrian, rendering this point moot.
-
quote:
This sudden appearance of so many fully developed life forms can not be explained using
the theory of evolution and the slow-working microevolution model.
Actually, the precursors of many of the so-called "fully developed" Cambrian fauna can be found in Precambrian deposits. And the transition seems to have taken on the order of tens of millions of years -- plenty of time for evolution to have taken place.
-
quote:
Scientists also discovered \u201cliving fossils\u201d like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for \u201cmillions of years.
This is not true. There are no fossil precursors of the modern coelacanth, so it is unknown how much it has changed or over how long.
Furthermore, it is sufficiently different from related Mesozoic species that modern species are placed in their own family.
-
quote:
Stephen Jay Gould
Taken out of context. I have read a lot of Gould, and I have a little familiarity with his ideas.
-
quote:
And when I searched more I found a tree of life, I observe something surprising\u2014no species on one branch changes
into a species on another branch
The important thing is that the tree exists. It is hard to reconcile a tree with a separate creation of the different species.
-
quote:
It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found
It also doesn't take a PhD to realize that true transitional species have been found. Lots of them, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 1:37 PM zcoder has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 90 (390476)
03-20-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by zcoder
03-20-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
quote:
Point me to where you got this information, so I can go find it in
the Universities libarys. just a lead.
Glad to oblige. Palaeos is a pretty good resource. Here is their description of the Ediacaran fauna. It also includes references from the scientific literature that you can look up. The Ediacaran fauna have been known for a long time -- I'm surprised that you never read about it in all your trips to the university library.
-
quote:
You lost me there, you can't show me the fossils of different species inbetween
their changes?
I'm saying that the nested hierarchical classification of species (the so-called Linnaean classification system) is by itself pretty good evidence for common descent. In fact, Douglas Theobald does a pretty good job at describing some of the evidence in favor of common descent and exactly why it is considered good evidence.
-
quote:
I will need you to tell me where these species are today, who found them ect.
The abbreviation for et cetera is etc., not ect.
Anyway, Palaeos once again lists lots of transitional fossils, as well as descriptions, the reason that they are considered transitionals, and scientific references that you can look up yourself at the university library. Also, Kathleen Hunt has list (unfortunately out of date and incomplete) of quite a few transitionals important in vertebrate evolutionary history.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 3:00 PM zcoder 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