|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Criticizing neo-Darwinism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taken to Message 72, you can cut to the end where I reply to your message (the first quote box is a recap of this thread discussion for others).
Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This topic is for discussing the problems with that particular neo-Darwinian account. It is not for arguing whether evolution happened or is happening. This discussion can now continue on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: Anyway you cannot back your views. Is there any research about how "empty niche" caused a speciation? Was it really observed? Some experiments? I dont't think so - it is only claimed. It is only atheistic belief of extraordinary self-structuring properties of matter in "empty niche", nothing more. Never observed. You know mushrooms and butterflies became my favorite anti-darwinian examples of evolution. Maybe you wouldn't like the following example of strength of the Nature and life as out of topic. And yet micelium of fungi do not seek "emty niche" to create mushroom. Is there asphalt above? - doesn't matter. The mushroom break through asphalt. Maybe the same for evolution of mammals: isnt't there empty niche? Who cares - the new mammalian order will be created nevertheless. As prescribed or directed by other forces. Asphalt Penetrating Mushroom! photo - Richard Calmes photos at pbase.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Anyway you cannot back your views. Is there any research about how "empty niche" caused a speciation? Actually there is, EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIESquote: This is evidence for microevolution speciation events
quote: Vacuum formed by extinction event, the highest rate of speciation in the foram record ... because "empty niches" were being filled. Enjoy. Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed tags compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
This discussion can now continue on topic. As you know I believe in evolution up to the point of things becoming completely different other things. I know science is supposed to be based on evidence, and much of evolution is based on evidence. But it has never been observed or reproduced where one thing becomes a completely different thing, and there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place. Is this the part you beieve has to be taken by scientific faith? Even your favorite horse chain has been said to be out of order.
http://www.amnh.org/.../Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html?50 The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth. Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, Edited by Admin, : Shorten link. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Even your favorite horse chain has been said to be out of order. There is a major difference between one or two fossils being out of place and the whole structure being incorrect. The history of paleontology is rife with examples of fossils being move from one lineage to another, but it is ALSO rife with lineages that have NOT changed: one error does not falsify the whole concept. {abe} They are discovered when additional information uncovers the error and then the errors are corrected. That is how the classical toxonomy tree of life has been constructed. The match between that and one developed by genetic comparisons is incredibly coincidental for there to be a lack of relationship. {/abe}
But it has never been observed or reproduced where one thing becomes a completely different thing, and there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place. There are several problems with this statement that have to do with scale of change and scale of time. To deal with this we will need to deal with definitions of what we each mean. See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? -- I started that thread to deal specifically with that question. Read down through it and then we can pick this discussion up (either here or there). Pay particular attention to Message 15 and Message 18 and note that I insist on the definitions as used in science, as otherwise you are not arguing against what the science is talking about. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : {abe} compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Even your favorite horse chain has been said to be out of order. Can you point to where AMNH states that the horse fossils are "out of order"?
http://www.amnh.org/.../Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html?50 Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Thus the display in the back shows that some later horses, such as Calippus, are actually smaller than earlier ones, and that other later horses, such as Neohipparion, still had three toes. RAZD had pointed out several times how this was the neatest progression of evolution and was complete. There is a picture with the horses lined up smallest to largest.The latest revelation is that that is not correct and then they line them up as they now know them to be because of new evidence. I think that says they were out of order. Then maybe not, you tell me. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thus the display in the back shows that some later horses, such as Calippus, are actually smaller than earlier ones, and that other later horses, such as Neohipparion, still had three toes. RAZD had pointed out several times how this was the neatest progression of evolution and was complete. WHOA BOY!!! First, I never said it was complete progression just one of the most complete ones, and in fact I expect intermediate species to be found between the ones shown. Any such fossil tree is a validation of common descent as long as there are no anomalies. Predictions are that new fossils will fill in the spaces with an intermediate form. Second, size has nothing to do with placement in a lineage: species get larger and smaller through time due to changing selective pressure. There are many instances of smaller species evolving from large ones. Third, the "Neohipparion, still had three toes" doesn't mean they are not correctly placed in the lineage -- vestigial toes in ancestor horse species could revert under appropriate conditions to three toes (such as living in marshy areas where they needed more support area than one toe could provide), BUT this was not necessary in this case: Neohipparion is a new world only member of the Hipparion group that ALL had three toes and is (according to the chart) descended from the Merychippus which is ALSO three toed, AND it is a side branch from the evolution of the modern horse. The modern horse evolved from a common ancestor to the Neohipparion before losing the use of the outer two of the three toes. It seems you are making\made the classic error of thinking of evolution as "progress" from (A) to (B) when that is not the case. Adaptation to fit the environment is the critical element, and the environment may fluctuate, oscillate over long time periods, so organisms would also be expected to fluctuate\oscillate in their adaptations.
There is a picture with the horses lined up smallest to largest. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm Not really by size (although that is the general trend), it is a picture of just the lineage, size just happens. One just needs to look at the size of all current varieties of horses to see that a link between evolution 'progress' and increased size is false. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe Edited by RAZD, : polish Edited by RAZD, : am I tired or what? Edited by RAZD, : rewrote for clarity compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Now that we've taken care of the horses, I suppose it's back to this:
As you know I believe in evolution up to the point of things becoming completely different other things. Are we jumping to another thread to discuss this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But it has never been observed or reproduced where one thing becomes a completely different thing, and there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place. Keeping with horses for now. The question is how much change you are talking about, as the horse lineage goes from a 3 front + 4 rear toed herbivorous, predominantly swamp dweller the size of a small forest deer to a single toe on each leg grass grazing, predominantly plains dweller the size of, well, a modern horse. When is the amount of change accumulated over time sufficient for classification as Macroevolution? Where do you draw the line? From: EohippusEohippus was a descendent of the Condylarth, a dog-sized, five-toed creature that lived about 75 million years ago. It lived during the early Eocene period, which took place 50 to 60 million years ago. Eohippus, which means "dawn horse," stood about twelve to fourteen inches at the shoulder and weighed about twelve pounds. It looked nothing like a horse. It had an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and a long tail. Its color probably most resembled that of a deer, a darker background with lighter spots. The legs of Eohippus were flexible and rotating with all major bones present and unfused. It had a choppy, up-down gait and was not very fast. There were four toes on each front foot and three toes on the hind. The vestigial toes - two on the front feet and one on the hind - were still present. It had a small brain and low-crowned teeth with three incisors, one canine, four distinct premolars, and three "grinding" molars in each side of each jaw. Browsing on fruit and fairly soft foliage, Eohippus probably lived in an environment with soft soil, the kind found on jungle floors and around the edges of pools. Since Eohippus walked on the pads of its feet, it was able to cross wet, marshy ground without much difficulty. To the modern horse with different diet and arrangement of teath, different structure to the toes, many different sizes, with the modern horse being one of the larger species (not the largest). During that time the toe of that horse has also evolved from just a soft padded toe with a nail, typical of many non-hooved animals to something distinctive even for hooved animals. From Functional Anatomy of the Horse Foot (click):
A horse's hoof is composed of the wall, sole and frog. The wall is simply that part of the hoof that is visible when the horse is standing. It covers the front and sides of the third phalanx, or coffin bone. The wall is made up of the toe (front), quarters (sides) and heel. The wall of the hoof is composed of a horny material that is produced continuously and must be worn off or trimmed off. The hoof wall does not contain blood vessels or nerves. In the front feet, the wall is thickest at the toe; in the hind feet the hoof wall is of a more uniform thickness. The wall, bars and frog are the weight-bearing structures of the foot. Normally the sole does not contact the ground. As weight is placed on the hoof, pressure is transmitted through the phalanges to the wall and onto the digital cushion and frog. The frog, a highly elastic wedge-shaped mass, normally makes contact with the ground first. The frog presses up on the digital cushion, which flattens and is forced outward against the lateral cartilages. The frog also is flattened and tends to push the bars of the wall apart (Figure 3). When the foot is lifted, the frog and other flexible structures of the foot return to their original position. When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump. This is much more difference in a feature than "just an increase in length" (as in an elephants trunk), it is a totally different structure to stand on (eohippus stood on his toes pads, equus stands on a hoof which not only is not a toe pad, but a feature that wasn't present in the eohippus) and it incorporates a new {added\changed} structure to increase blood flow by acting as a secondary pump. There are also significant changes to the skull, jaw, teeth and spine: This is what macroevolution is within evolutionary science: sufficient change accumulated over time in the evolution of a lineage of evolving species, such that the result is additive over time until it is significant enough to us to classify it at a different level of change. The change is ALL accomplised by microevolution within species, and it is only the linkage of species to species to species via common ancestor lineages that the change become noticeably different over longer periods of time to be declared significant at a taxonometric level. This is essentially the amount of evolution needed for a small forest deer to evolve into something similar to a horse. If this is not enough evidence of "where one thing becomes a completely different thing," then I suggest you are equivocating on what you mean by completely different.
...there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place. Note that the skulls shown do not represent the total number of genus (Hipparion is not shown) nor species or specimens, just representative ones of the different stages. This distinctive and significant change was shown with the current fossils known. Prediction: future finds will include species intermediate between the ones shown in the tree of horse fossils. Such finds will further validate this process. Fossils that do not fit the time-development structure could invalidate it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added horse chart image Edited by RAZD, : corrected "Note that the skulls shown do not represent the total number of species nor specimens, just representative ones of the different stages." paragraph compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
RAZD has already posted an excellent detailed reply to your message, so I'll just respond to this:
ICANT writes: I think that says they were out of order. Based just upon the picture at http://www.amnh.org/.../Treasures/Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html?50, I don't think it's possible to tell if the original order was wrong, or if it was just incomplete. But the accompanying article clearly explains that the difference has nothing to do with order, it has to do with descent. First it says that the evolution of the horse was originally presented as a single line of progression:
AMNH Website writes: The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. But we now know that horse evolution is much more complex, as the AMNH website goes on to explain:
AMNH Website writes: Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, determined through a method of analysis called cladistics, which has shown evolution to be a more complex, branching history, much like the genealogical history of your own family. In other words, what was wrong with the original presentation wasn't the order. What was wrong was that the original progression was not actually a line of descent at all. The order was correct if you're simply going by age of first appearance in the fossil record, but the first pre-horse in the progression was not the ancestor of the second pre-horse in the progression. And the second pre-horse in the progression was not the ancestor of the third pre-horse in the progression, and so forth. Certainly they were all evolutionary cousins, but they did not represent a direct evolutionary line of descent. If someone were to present a direct line of descent for your family, it might consist of your great-great grandfather followed by your great grandfather followed by your grandfather followed by your father followed by you. But let's say your family historians had fallen down on the job, and so there were many blanks in your family history, and so they instead presented as a direct line of descent your great-great grandfather's cousin three times removed followed by your actual great grandfather followed by your grandfather's cousin four times removed followed by your uncle followed by you. That definitely is not a direct line of descent, and it is analogous to the original presentation - the order was correct, but it was not a direct line of descent. It can be difficult to describe why the implications on evolutionary theory of changes to reconstructions of evolutionary descent is virtually nil. The theory of evolution, by which I mean the theory itself which describes how life changes over time due to mutation and natural selection, is unaffected by such changes. If we uncover enough horse fossils to eventually ferret out some direct lines of evolutionary descent, then that is consistent with the theory of evolution. If we never identify any direct lines of descent, then that, too, is consistent with the theory of evolution. The theory itself says nothing about the availability of evidence or our ability to properly interpret it. The theory of evolution, like all theories, is an interpretational framework in which to view evidence. The theory was originally formulated from evidence pieced together by Darwin and Wallace, but once accepted it became the interpretational framework within which new evidence was viewed. Scientists attempt to fit new evidence into the framework of the theory of evolution, and so far this has been a relatively easy task. The revelations have come in the form of just what mutation and natural selection are capable of doing, not in any fundamental changes to evolutionary theory itself. Creationists usually challenge the theory of evolution by looking for evidence that doesn't fit within its framework. The fossil evidence of horses is not such evidence, since it fits easily within an evolutionary framework. If horse evolution provided any revelations, it was that as we uncovered more and more of the fossil evidence we found that horse evolution was far more complex than the original fossil collection hinted at. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It can be difficult to describe why the implications on evolutionary theory of changes to reconstructions of evolutionary descent is virtually nil. The theory of evolution, by which I mean the theory itself which describes how life changes over time due to mutation and natural selection, is unaffected by such changes. What you have is a theoretical reconstruction of lineage and each lineage and branching structure is essentialy a theory that can be falsified by new evidence that shows a different relationship. This has occurred many times in the past, but all that is changed is the relationship, not evolution. To challenge evolution such fossil evidence would have to show either that descent with modification could not have occurred or that some chimera spontaneous creation occurred. That has not happened. ie - that we descended from australopithicus can be falsified by new evidence of a different descent from a different anscestor population. That will not invalidate evolution, just change the structure of the tree. This would be similar to the change in the ancestral status of neanderthals when the evidence came to show that they were cousins instead. The first thing you do with the jig saw puzzle is arrange the specimens vertically by age, then you start looking for features that show lineage and descent to sort them horizontally by such features, and then you start drawing lines between them to make the most logical structure based on the information available. Then you go look for more evidence. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABO Junior Member (Idle past 6135 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Ok, I can buy some of your story, tell me about the evidence. The only evidence I’ve been able to find is either described in the bible as creatures created after their kind or fakes with hypothetical possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ok, I can buy some of your story, tell me about the evidence. Common descent of organisms is substantiated by molecular phylogenetics, which proves ancestral connections between species. Molecular phylogenetics is substantiated by examples of detectable co-speciation between physically proximal but evolutionarily distant species, like pocket gophers and their lice. That evidence and discussion of it is in this thread:
EvC Forum: More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus Since that example - and others - prove, experimentally, that molecular phylogenetic techniques return accurate information about species ancestry, we know that the general conclusion of common descent is accurate.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024