|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
| Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
| EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total) |
|
| |
| FossilDiscovery | |
| Total: 893,146 Year: 4,258/6,534 Month: 472/900 Week: 178/150 Day: 24/8 Hour: 0/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MurkyWaters Member (Idle past 330 days) Posts: 56 From: USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MurkyWaters Member (Idle past 330 days) Posts: 56 From: USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MurkyWaters Member (Idle past 330 days) Posts: 56 From: USA Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only
See Message 66
The concept of IC is that one part being removed renders the WHOLE inactive, therefore removing one part is ALL that is necessary to render the whole inoperative. The "almost identical pre-existing component" is a component that is STILL different and that must be modified to work - there must be a mutation that did not exist in the bacterial genome before to change that element. But that was not the only element that was needed for the whole new system to operate. There was a second mutation in a second component that then made a new different IC system. Remove one component of the new system and the whole fails to work: this is the definition of IC. The new system is an IC system and it did evolve. Case closed.
False precept. The system evolved, it is IC and this precept and conclusions are invalidated.
What I said was (1) YOU have no metric for establishing what the "information level" is for any species, therefore you cannot measure whether it increases or decreases, and (2) that in an instance like this where you have boundary condition {A}, remove a part (whether an IC component or wings), and then later boundary condition {A} is restored (by evolution), that either you must have an increase in information in one of the steps OR the concept of information is useless in determining what can and cannot evolve.
I gave you two different instances where this boundary condition evaluation above shows either information increases OR is irrelevant to what evolution can and cannot accomplish. This invalidates "information" as a concept worth pursuing any further.
Which is also refuted by Ken Miller: quote: You do realize that Behe admitted in court under oath that there is no such thing as an IC system that can't be explained by evolution don't you? It part of the Dover trial.
Grab at those straws and hold on tight Murk. There was a change in the species over time, there was a change in the frequency of alleles within the population: that IS evolution. It does not matter that speciation was not reached (the bacteria is still considered e-coli, although it is difficult to test for reproductive isolation eh). You cannot use your definition of evolution - use the one used in science or talk about something else Murk. See Message 66.
You've demonstrated that you just ignored evidence to the contrary.
You are still dancing around the issue Murk, and you still have not defined it. You are still talking about a matter of degree, and you FAILED to comment on the issue of degree of difference between any two of three species at the DNA genetic level to show that there is some other "kind" of change necessary. All that is needed is mutation and natural selection. Change in species over time. The fossil record shows a dogish looking herbivorous animal* evolving into the modern horse - this is one of the ancestral species to modern horses:
There are other examples in the fossil record. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html For some examples. Denial doesn't make them go away.
My bad. The mechanism is mutation (change to the genetic pool of alleles in a population) and natural selection (survival and sexual selection operating over time).
So far all you have presented is hot air and wasted bandwidth. So far your "alternate interpretation" has been shown to be a falsified interpretation. It will be interesting to see if you EVER get around to the issues. Enjoy. GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters onlyEdited by RAZD, : "dog-like herbiverous animal" changed to "dogish looking herbivorous animal" 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 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MurkyWaters Member (Idle past 330 days) Posts: 56 From: USA Joined: |
This post is in reply to all of your latest responses listed below. I have made this post a response to the last message in that group, even though it may mostly apply to prior ones. That brings us up to date except for your most recent on “informationâ€. When we complete the definitions, I think I would like to tackle the information question next since I think it is essential to understanding our differences. Re: Dealing with the issues - still not done [57] To be blunt however, this debate is overall becoming a colossal waste of time, which I don’t have and while I don’t know your situation, I don’t see how you or anyone else would have either. I dearly wish that we could have a decent conversation, both in moral tone and in organization. Let me briefly address these two issues in hopes that we can turn things around. If we cannot agree to reasonable debate terms, it makes no sense to continue. First, your tone from the very beginning of this debate has been inflammatory and it has only gotten worse as we have proceeded. Your posts are largely littered with false and unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations and continual accusations of denial, delusion, living in fantasy worlds and other uncalled for attacks and abusive, goading and belittling language. I suspect, as is common with evolutionists, that this is because you have lost the argument a long time ago and there is nothing left than to use this obvious debate tactic. I have often responded in kind by simply parroting your remarks because your rude and insulting statements have more aptly applied to your own arguments rather than mine. While I cannot stop you from doing this, the simple fact of the matter is that you obviously feel your belief in evolution is justified and I feel just as committed to creation theory and the evidence that overwhelmingly supports it. Whether those positions are true or not, accusing the other person of living in a fantasy world, does not support either argument and is only used to incite rather than debate the facts. I don’t know why you are in this debate, but if it is to convince your opponent that your position is the right one by providing evidence, calling them names is not the way to go about it. THAT is the real waste of bandwidth in this debate. I will decline parroting your rude remarks if you don’t make them in the first place. Second, I never intended this debate to go on forever. Again, I have other things I would like to do with my life other than debate you. In addition, I’d like to read or participate in other topics that may not have been explored. Whether you wish to believe it or not, I am telling you again that my intention and my understanding was that we were only to address the definitions in this debate. I think this is undeniably clear from the very beginning based on all of my comments and arguments. And as we have repeatedly seen, the definitions are a prerequisite to discussing any evidence. While I am perfectly open to debating the evidence for/against evolution or for/against creation with you or anyone else, it is out of place until we finish our first objective. That is why I have only briefly responded to your posts regarding evidence to point out some obvious fallacies, not to argue the evidence in detail. While I have veered from the definitions on occasion, and in this latest post as well, I made the decision at some point not to discuss evidence at all until we complete the debate on definitions. In addition, when and if we decide to discuss evidence, it will have to be in an orderly fashion where we can explore each of the issues one at a time from both of our perspectives, not only those issues for which you are well prepared or have prior material to work from. This constant pitching over the wall of evidence to distract from our real discussion is annoying and dishonest. To ask me to respond to something which has nothing to do with our debate and then accuse me of not responding to make it appear that I cannot refute the evidence is a deceitful debate tactic. I have already said that I would be glad to respond when it is appropriate. It is not surprising that you would want to move on to evidence since your arguments regarding the definitions have simply been non-existent. The only arguments that I am aware of that you have used is 1) You must use what “science†uses (which I have successfully refuted from several different angles) and 2) Despite referenced definitions clearly stating the contrary, you continue to insist that they are all just change in species over time. Based on that, why you would expect me to agree with you is baffling. While I have not looked to see how most debates end in this forum, any debate I have ever witnessed or participated in ends with closing arguments, so I am confused as to why you don’t wish to go in that direction. The only suspicion I have (based on what I have seen in other debates on this site) is that you 1) Attempt to be as irreverent and hostile in your discourse as possible and 2) Post irrelevant arguments regarding evidence, in order to 1) Disguise the weakness of your arguments and 2) Hope that your opponent will be overwhelmed and offended enough to bow out. That way, you can dishonestly state that I abandoned the debate “like all the other creationists you’ve dealt with†and claim some self serving victory to make you feel good and cover the inadequacy of your philosophical and scientific position. To be blunt, I don’t care. In the end, there is nothing I can do if some choose to deceive themselves. As the Bible says: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator†And also: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished†This says that the evidence of design is so clearly and strongly seen in God’s creation, that there is no excuse for not believing God created the world and everything in it. But it goes on to say that some “willingly†(not because of any evidence to the contrary) choose to ignore the catastrophic flood event that destroyed the world as it then existed and instead believe that everything continues just as we see it today since the World began (uniformitarianism). Continuing, if you have no further evidence (regarding definitions) to present, why don’t we just agree to disagree on that? It is clear that we are on very different plains with agreement on almost nothing (except that things change). We can post definitions from the evolutionist’s and creationist’s perspectives and be done with it. If we decide to proceed to the evidence at least we’ll know each other’s positions when someone references adaptation or evolution. On the other hand, I have presented numerous valid arguments that I have boiled down to a dozen or so in my latest “long†post (53). However, I feel the most compelling is simply this: A: Change in species over time is a FACT To define evolution as A and then imply B is a fact is not only a logical fallacy, but is dishonest and meant not only to deceive the public but to delude oneself. And make no mistake. Whatever you may believe personally, evolution (man to molecules) is being touted as a FACT, so you will not be able to deny that this logical fallacy has and is taking place. Having said that, let me respond specifically to some of the comments in your most recent posts.
You are talking in circles again. Is the theory “not complete†or is it “invalidated†when things cannot be explained? I’ll repeat my prior question. Are you trying to tell me that evolutionists have a watertight explanation for all of the evidence regarding evolutionary theory? I can probably provide you with several pages of quotations from evolutionists themselves and others indicating that this is not the case, usually lamenting that there is NO plausible explanation at all. Having an explanation for something is also very different than showing something to be true. You can provide a hypothetical explanation (story) that life came from non-life, but without any proof, it simply remains a hypothetical explanation (story). You continue to confuse operational science with origins studies. The fact remains that theories regarding origins can never be proven because no one was there to see it happen. It cannot be repeated or tested like operational Science. Therefore it is the preponderance of the evidence that matters. Evolutionists have always found a way to explain contradictory evidence, the fossil record being a prime example. There are probably a dozen explanations for the disappearance of the dinosaurs along with other mass extinctions and other theories regarding the ice ages including many theories of various catastrophic events etc. No matter how much evidence comes in, they’ll probably never admit that it was the flood because that would mean that the Bible might be true. Darwin proposed natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, however, he had no explanation (except perhaps use/disuse) for how new traits arose which natural selection could act upon. That debate rages even today, despite advances in genetic theory. So your contention that an origins theory is discarded as soon as some “potentially†controversial evidence is discovered is blatantly false. It may modify the mechanisms, but the original contention (The diversity of all life evolved from a single common ancestor which came from non-life by purely naturalistic means over billions of years) is a presupposition that is never modified.
Then why do evolutionists ignore the evidence?
No, it is a decision not to discuss the evidence until our first topic has been completed. Your delusion is thinking that everyone is going to play along with your debate tactics.
I’ve presented valid evidence relevant to the topic we are discussing. You have not. It does not take much effort to present irrelevant evidence. It is merely a way to distract the conversation because you have nothing of substance to offer.
You misrepresented what laborlawtalk said the definition of the theory of evolution was – and did not even QUOTE the definition part which clearly states that the theory of evolution is that all species today are the result of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago and accounts for the great diversity of life we see today and which has become extinct. Stop misrepresenting the facts Raz. The fact is, I’ve not misrepresented anything. If, in your opinion I have, than it has certainly been much less than the misrepresentation that you have done. I have done nothing differently than you, which is to seek evidence that supports our cases. It is a misrepresentation on your part to exclude the validity of any explanation of evolution (which is, after all, what a definition is) which doesn’t agree with you. You shouldn’t be accusing me of misrepresenting anything, when your whole position is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. You have called “change in species over time†a process, a mechanism, a theory, a science and who knows what else. Based on definitions that we were both able to dig up, the evidence shows that 82% define evolution in the fashion that I have proposed, not yours and you want to ignore this evidence. You’ve already lost this argument, so why don’t we go on to the next.
What you seem to fail to understand is that mutation/selection/change in frequency of alleles CANNOT change one kind of organism into another whether you drag your feet kicking and screaming or not. A population of dark moths and light moths changing into a population of dark moths and light moths is not a demonstration of moths changing into anything that wasn’t there before, just as finches with longer or shorter beaks had already existed in the population prior to the change. That is the whole point. We have only observed this TYPE OF CHANGE to have the ability to allow organisms to adapt to their environment within their kinds, not between kinds. I provided a number of examples and parallels to make this clear. It is like asking the question – if you can pedal your bicycle at 10mph, how long will it take you to get to the moon? Sorry, you can pedal your whole lifetime, but a bike doesn’t have the ability for space travel. Thus, all you have is the degree of change in DNA which reshuffles, corrupts or looses information, but not the KIND of change that can add information responsible for new and more complex features.
This is nonsense. You are misrepresenting what evolution is and again missing the point. That evolution has no direction is an evolutionista misrepresentation of evolution and does NOT deal with the SCIENCE. Mechanisms such as adaptation (change within kinds) may not be directed, but evolution MUST be. Otherwise we would still be pond scum! How obvious can that be? You are completely misrepresenting what the Berkeley reference you quoted is saying by equivocating EVOLUTION with “Natural Selectionâ€. Berkeley was discussing “Natural Selectionâ€, a process involved with evolution, not the theory of evolution. It is saying that natural selection may not demonstrate direction (creationists know that this is always true), but in other places already quoted it says that evolution itself IS directed. Having said that, you are misreading the quote entirely anyway. It says “Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations†(assuming they are talking about changes from one creature into the next, a presupposition which has never been observed), “it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progressâ€. This is NOT what I or creation scientists have said. All we are saying is that it’s results must ultimately be directed and that’s what defines evolution. The following reasons they give DO NOT refute that evolution is directed, only that NATURAL SELECTION is not an “all-powerful forceâ€. Creationists have no disagreement with this. This does NOT state that EVOLUTION produces no progress only that NATURAL SELECTION does not STRIVE to produce progress, even though progress is indeed produced (theoretically). It is self evident that evolution must produce higher complexity since all the diversity of life we see today supposedly evolved from a single common ancestor. You will also find that they are unknowingly making the argument for Creation Theory. If adaptation is an undirected process which produces no higher order, than it cannot change one kind of creature into another and creation theory has been proved. In fact to quote your Berkeley reference “Evolution ONLY occurs when there is a change in gene frequencyâ€. It is obvious that a change in gene frequency (more or less of a certain pre existing type in the population) does not produce new features, only the frequency of existing features. Since this is the ONLY time evolution occurs, than it CANNOT produce new features and we could not have descended from a common ancestor. We must therefore have descended from an original created kind which contained all of the features that we already have. Therefore, this reference supports creation theory. Note also (again), that many scientists including one the most famous, Ernst Mayr, do not agree that changes in gene frequencies is evolution since nothing “new†is produced that could change organisms from one type into another.
First, I have shown this is not true. Second, it does not logically follow that I am not familiar with what it says just because you think it contradicts my characterization of evolution. It shows that you are not familiar with logic. I’ve read the Berkley material as well as you, perhaps better since as I stated, I introduced the reference.
First, I have already demonstrated that 82% of the definitions “sound like†my definition. So your feeble attempts at cherry picking are irrelevant. Second, you have again misrepresented my position. I’ve never said that evolution must occur over billions of years, only that the theory of evolution states that it has been occurring over that period of time. The actual time required for evolution to occur would be the time it takes one kind of life to change into another kind. Since that has never been observed, the time it takes for evolution to occur would be infinity (in other words, mathematically impossible). I have also stated that the primary mechanisms attributed to cause evolutionary change (one kind into another) are natural selection and mutations. However, since those processes have been shown to be incapable of changing one kind of life into another kind, yes, another process would need to be involved. However, that is not relevant to what the definition of evolution is, only whether it is true or not, which is not the subject of this debate. What is relevant is including the type of change we are talking about in the definition so there is a basis for refutation instead of defining it as an obvious and self serving observation that we all know is true.
Here is your argument #1 again which I mentioned earlier. Repeating arguments with no evidence is only going to make it true in your fantasy world in which you are the one that is fooled. Sorry, but CISOT is NOT used by all scientists. I’ve refuted this multiple times. And you have not refuted the fact that micro-evolution is not accepted by creation scientists as being evolution by feeble attempts at quote mining wikis. These are not only unreliable, but your references did not in any way refute my statement (I have not repeated these references above). Creationists recognize the use of the word microevolution but if you read the rest of the reference instead of quote mining, you will see that they do not consider it to be true evolution (change from one kind into another). Your second reference is an incomplete stub. Talk about misrepresentation!
Variation in the frequency of EXISTING traits will NEVER result in evolution, which requires new information to be produced.
Creation scientists DO accept microevolution (adaptation within kinds) as a fact including speciation (within kinds), which I have stated many times. However they do not accept that it is evolution, which requires changing one kind into another kind. Including “evolution†in the term microevolution misleads the reader into thinking it is “small†evolution, when it fact, the processes that in entails cannot lead to the “real†evolution (macro), so its usage is discouraged. Now, you can either join other evolutionists and scientists who do not accept change in frequency of alleles as evolution or you can continue to equivocate evolution with microevolution and stonewall with your own private interpretation of evolutionary theory in your fantasy world. It makes no difference to reality whether you do or not.
You really have been reading too much evolutionary propaganda. Neither of these examples are “transitionals†and neither show that evolution has occurred. These are examples of adaptation within a kind, which we already know is fact. They do not show a transition between different kinds, which is what evolution demands must occur to have created all the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor. Rather than a “plethora†which it should show, the fossil record is completely absent of any transitional forms (a handful are controversial even in evolutionist circles). Many an evolutionist (and all honest ones) has admitted that this is the case.
Get your head out of the sand. Punctuated equilibrium was proposed specifically to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record which ought to have been there if evolution were true. You must know that. In 1977 Gould wrote,â€The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.†In 1980 Gould said, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our IMAGINATION, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.†Whatever backsliding he’s done since then to placate political pressure by evolutionists is no matter. He was being truthful back then and is precisely why he proposed the theory in the first place. PE recognizes that gaps are characteristic of the fossil record, NOT missing data. The original 1972 paper by Eldridge and Gould clearly stated that the theory was based on long periods of stasis followed by rapid change. Gould continued to be very vocal about this in the many years that followed. For example in 1977 he said “most evolutionary change … is concentrated in rapid (often geologically instantaneous) events …†While not a proponent of hopeful monsters persay, in a paper published in 1977 titled ‘The Return of Hopeful Monsters’, Gould wrote: “I … predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.†He also suggested at the time that another mechanism was involved in macro evolutionary change. Since then, of course, he has been forced by the evolutionist community to soften his criticisms of gradualistic theory so as not to rock the boat. You say, “There is substantial disagreement whether punk eek is needed?†Indeed. This is further evidence that origins studies do not follow the rules of operational science. If transitionals are found, they are touted as evidence for evolution. If there are gaps in the fossil record it is touted as evidence for evolution (using PE or whatever). Apparently evolution is true no matter what the evidence shows…looks like a religious belief to me.
You continue to dishonestly misrepresent what I have said and what analogies and parables are. They are meant to portray similarities in meaning or truth, and are never meant as scientific evidence for a particular point of view. You’ve apparently read Dawkins who has made his reputation as a master storyteller, so you should understand that. You choose to hurl insults instead of considering the facts because they obviously come too close to the truth. The concept of a common designer as an explanation for similarities among a set of objects is just as valid (and I would say much more) than an evolutionary explanation. In the same way, you must concede that there may be the possibility of a limitation to genetic change since changes between kinds has never been observed and untold generations of breeding experiments since history began has never produced a new creature.
You speak as if it a simple thing for nature to simply re-arrange and substitute DNA sequences to create new creatures, but this has never been observed. DNA is the computer program that God designed into living things. An intelligent programmer is necessary to change the code. The code, as designed, currently restricts changes to within kinds. As I said earlier the similarity between living things cries of “designerâ€, not evolution. Design, if nothing else, is certainly a valid interpretation of similarity between different objects, living or otherwise. And your strawman of “species†is getting tiresome. There is a difference between “kinds†and “speciesâ€. Creationists do not deny speciation occurs. The difference in DNA between any two kinds can never be traversed by any known evolutionary process. Mutations can never re-create a different genetic code that was not originally programmed into that particular kind. A mutation is neutral or reduces genetic information and variability.
Speciation has been observed, but never the change from one kind to another.
Address the reality: None of these things has even the faintest relevance to evolution except in your strawman fantasy world. Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is not.
I would be glad to document any statements I have made regarding evidence such as the dates of human and ape remains when we finish our discussion of definitions. Identifying areas for which we may disagree is not a waste of bandwidth. It is a common technique used in many disciplines including science. You must first recognize there is a problem before you can deal with it. What is a waste of bandwidth are your continual attempts to discuss anything except what this debate is about and your constant hurling of insults and name calling to incite rather than debate issues.
It’s hard for me to believe that you would deny that Darwin recognized the inadequacy of the fossil record. It is a typical evolutionista tactic to accuse their opponents of quote mining in order to deny reality. This should wait until we finish with definitions, but perhaps I can use it to reflect on some pertinent issues. So let’s take a look at Darwin’s own words from the origin of species 1st edition, 1859. P280 – “The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. “ P299 – “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views.†P302 – “But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory. On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species.—The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as afatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.†P310 – “The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.†P 463 – “On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.†Regarding the above reference to the progenitors of the Silurian groups, an 1860 review of the origin of species in Quarterly review by Wilberforce, P244 states: “Now it is proved to demonstration by Sir Roderick Murchison, and admitted by all geologists, that we possess these earlier formations, stretching over vast extents, perfectly unaltered, and exhibiting no signs of life. Here we have, as nearly as it is possible in the nature of things to have, the absolute proof of a negative. If these forms of life had existed they must have been found. Even Mr. Darwin shrinks from the deadly gripe of this argument. 'The case,' he says (p. 308) 'at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.' More than once indeed does he make this admission.†So, how did Darwin respond to this lack of evidence? Darwin goes on to explain why he supposes the fossil record is so extremely imperfect, but it is important to recognize that these are presuppositions, many of which have been shown to be false. For example, on p288 he says “No organism wholly soft can be preservedâ€. But we know today having found numerous fossils of jelly fish and even single celled organisms that this is not the case because they were buried rapidly by the flood, not over long periods of time. Today, many evolutionists still cling to the view that the fossil record is simply incomplete despite the millions of fossils that we have discovered and many other evidences. However what is important is what Darwin says on P 342 “He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record [that they are simply imperfect], will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations.†Darwin is saying that if the missing transitional forms (real ones, not just variations within kinds), is NOT due to imperfection in the fossil record (that is, not due to missing data) but is actually characteristic of the fossil record (which many evolutionists like Gould believe), then it is a VALID position to reject his ENTIRE theory. In other words, to interpret the fossil record as not imperfect INVALIDATES his theory. He goes on to say that evidence which shows that the fossil record was not laid down in enormous intervals of time would also INVALIDATE his theory. This is the point I have made many times and which you have not only rejected, but want to avoid talking about (evidence for real macro evolution) because there is no evidence. Darwin also said “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.†At least Darwin recognized that data can validly be INTERPRETED a different way which would cause one to come to a completely different conclusion. You should respect this fact as Darwin did before telling everyone who disagrees with you that they live in a fantasy world.
You’re “muddying the water†to avoid seeing the facts and of course missing the point again. There is hardly a story on Coelacanth that doesn’t call it a “living fossilâ€, virtually identical to ones found in the fossil record. It was presumed to be extinct because there was no fossils present after that time and yet it was found alive. There are thousands of examples like this. It has been proved that fossils can form quickly. Therefore if you find a coelacanth (or any number of its varieties) in some rock that you cannot date, who’s to say it didn’t happen a thousand years ago instead of 100 million (since a variety is still living!)? But this isn’t the only issue that this raises. Evolutionists were WRONG about a whole host of things including the fact that it’s fins were thought to have been used for “walking†until observations of the living fish showed this to be untrue. If “stories†can be told when entire fossils are discovered what credence can be given to fantasies that result from just bits and pieces? Evolution will be true in the evolutionist’s mind no matter what the evidence - organisms changing rapidly or staying the same for millions of years - because it is born of faith, not science. This also is evidence for the majority of fossils being laid down during the flood. Few fossils are formed unless a catastrophic event buries them quickly. Therefore it is not surprising to creationists that coelacanth fossils (and many other examples) were absent and the living fossils discovered in the present time.
Again, you are the one in denial of the evidence and of reality. It DID NOT evolve and I have soundly shown that this is the case with solid reasoning. No wild assertions were necessary except by you. Apparently we need to talk more about this and other issues regarding evidence one at a time. However, as I’ve said repeatedly this is not the time or manner in which they should be discussed. I’d be happy to discuss further if and when we make that decision. In the meantime, the topic of definitions has not been completed. I’m officially making the decision now that I will not go into detail on any evidence regardless of how much goading and name calling you may do until we finish our first topic. If you have so much time to debate evidence than think about this - Provide several examples of one kind of living animal or plant that we have observed today to have changed by itself into another kind (not species) that we’ve never seen before? This should be easy since in order for evolution to be true this must have happened countless times to have provided all the diversity of life we see today from a single common ancestor. If you cannot do this, then stop accusing me of living in a fantasy world.
You’ve got to be joking! If you plan to go crying to mommy, you’d better be willing to look yourself in the mirror. The forum guidelines state: The rules (at least the ones posted from the rules link) do not specifically state anything about accusing the other person of lying unless it’s considered part of point 3 above. In any case, I DID NOT accuse you of lying and I’ve only parroted your rude and unnecessary comments in order to point out that they would apply equally, and in most cases more appropriately, to you.
The evidence has already been posted. You have provided your interpretation (misrepresentation) of the evidence. I assumed it was obvious, but apparently nothing is obvious to someone who wants to twist words and the truth to fool themselves into believing what they want. You have completely misrepresented these definitions (I will leave out willfully. That can be between you and whatever God you might believe in, if any. I really don’t care at this point). First, I’ll leave out your additional 6 sources so we can make a valid comparison. I think it’s obvious by now that I could produce hundreds more that use my definition, not yours. If that would convince you, I would certainly go through the trouble, but if the current definitions don’t do it than I doubt anything else will. To be clear that we are using the same definitions, I will state them over again in the same order as in your post, using the same text except that I will make note of any relevant text that you have removed. I won’t be picky if there are irrelevant changes such as occurs frequently at Wikipedia. Before I do that we need to re-state what we are looking for, since you have twisted the interpretation in order to make it come out in your favor.
While I was being honest in reading the definitions plainly in regards to their content, you are attempting to apply completely different standards to our definitions in order to misinterpret what they mean. This fools no one. First, While you require that the components of my definition be “stated directlyâ€, you allow yours to include any “variations†which you interpret to be change in species over time. Sorry, but we either compare them using the same standards or not at all. NONE (0%) of the definitions state directly that the definition is “change in species over timeâ€. So I was being fair and generous by including ANY in that category. Neither is that definition equivalent to change in frequency of alleles or descent with modification. Second, you are dishonesty using semantics to eliminate entries that include my definition by necessitating them to state directly that it is a “required†part of the definition. Again, using those same standards, NONE (0%) of the definitions directly state that “change in species over time†is a REQUIRED part of evolution. In fact the definitions do not “require†anything. A component is either present or it is not. Its presence makes it a part of the definition, period. Third, you want to exclude anything except the first sentence to imply that anything else is an unnecessary part of the definition, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Definitions can be more than a single sentence and the explanation following the first sentence is necessary to explain what the first sentence means! Therefore it is necessary. You obviously don’t want to include those parts because they confirm that the real theory of evolution is the one that I have been espousing. Fourth, the whole point of my comparison of these definitions was to demonstrate that “change is species over time†is not the ONLY part of the definition. In other words, it cannot stand on it’s own as you have been attempting to do. However, you have turned this around by classifying anything which CONTAINS CISOT as being ONLY CISOT. I stated that 25% of the definitions contained ONLY change over time not that there were no others that referred to change. All definitions imply that change occurs, or evolution could not be true. However, the vast majority specify what kind of change this must be. So you are the one misrepresenting the facts again, not me. Apparently we need to confirm some simple logic. If a definition contains something other than CISOT then the definition is not simply (not only) “change in species over timeâ€. This is a logical Fact that cannot be denied, but which apparently you are attempting to do anyway. To repeat – If a definition contains A and B, then the definition does not contain ONLY A, it contains A AND B. If a definition contains A, B and C, then it does NOT contain ONLY A, it contains all three. Therefore, if a definition contains “Millions/Billions of yearsâ€, or “change to greater complexity/higher life formsâ€, or “responsible for all the diversity of life we see today†or “entirely new species†or any combination, variation of those or any other relevant differentiating information than it does NOT contain ONLY “Change in species over timeâ€. Those other things are clearly included because “Change in species over time†cannot stand on its own and is not a statement of the theory of evolution, only an observation which could mean literally ANYTHING. I suspect that some of the people responsible for posting a bogus “CISOT only†definition in these references may either have their own political, theological or materialistic biases, have been swayed by evolutionist propaganda or simply copied unintentionally from another incorrect definition. However, the point I have been making throughout this debate is that change in species over time cannot stand on its own, because it says nothing about the theory of evolution. For example, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory%20of%20evolution defines the theory of evolution as “(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals†How can “change in species over time†be a theory of the ORIGIN of species? It says nothing about the ORIGIN of species, only that they change over time. Darwin’s discourse of the same name discusses how the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor over huge amounts of time. He also discusses the origins of the original living prototype. Therefore, all of those components become part of the theory, not just what you want to cherry pick out of it. “Change in species over time†is simply a statement of a single observation that has been known to be true since the beginning of time. There is nothing controversial about it. CISOT can be true WITHOUT the theory of evolution being true. That is precisely why you are attempting to define it in a deceptive way. We need only look at a single example which you categorized as only change in species over time to display the ludicrous hypocrisy you have used to interpret these definitions. With any stretch of the imagination, it is impossible for someone to interpret this definition as ONLY change in species over time. How can you possible deny that it says nothing about the theory of evolution except change in species over time? I can only assume that you have chosen to blind yourself to the truth. In fact, it never explicitly states anywhere that species change over time, it only IMPLIES this, something you have unfairly attempted to deny me. Apparently, 3.8 billion years is not a long time to you? It is for 54% of the definitions. “All living species today have the same origin†does NOT imply that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today and that they have a common ancestor? Since this definition and many like it state that all life we see today evolved from a common ancestor, this therefore IMPLIES that greater complexity has resulted. By the way, this definition also includes Abiogenesis, but we’ll ignore that for now. Using the SAME standards of comparison, we can now demonstrate the appropriate classification of these definitions. I will also use classifications roughly corresponding to yours so we can compare. I have no idea why you would have wanted to separate “new feature†from “complexity†as these are basically the same thing. In addition, I discuss later why it is valid to include speciation, so instead of (A) and (B) for these, I’ll just call it ABC. In addition, if a definition states that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today or the existence of a common ancestor it will also be classified as ABC since obviously that must have entailed a movement toward greater complexity and change from one KIND to another. This is a very important part of the definition since it qualifies the type of change that must be involved. You have also ignored 54% of the definitions which include long periods of time. This can only be interpreted as an attempt to inflate your position. If these components are included in the definition, then the definition is not ONLY change in species over time. This is included specifically to qualify the type of change involved. So here are the categories: (ABC) - Development of new features, complexity, speciation, responsibility for all the diversity of life or a common ancestor is included in the definition. This qualifies the type of change involved as molecules to man evolution since change in species over time is vague, confusing and requires explanation. (D) - Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations (although these are not equivalent) is the ONLY part of the definition with no other explanation that includes ABC or F. (F) - Long periods of time (including billions or millions of years) is part of the definition. Note that ALL definitions imply that species change over time (and I agree that species do change). However, you must know by now that the principal crux of this debate is that this is insufficient by itself. Therefore, if the definition includes ABC or F, then it is not JUST (only) change in species over time. CISOT is simply a cute “sloganâ€, but does not explain what the theory of evolution is about and is therefore totally and completely useless as a “definitionâ€. I was tempted to break your change in species over time to a “requirement†for CISOT (0% of definitions), frequency of alleles, descent with modification or other variations as you did with new features and complexity. The reason is that CISOT and other variations are NOT equivalent. There are many observed variations like age in a population that may not involved heredity or change in gene frequency. In addition, the way that Darwin used descent with modification made it clear that this “modification†was a change to greater complexity responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Darwin TITLED his theory “descent with modificationâ€, it was not a definition. These have different connotations than simply change in species over time. Nevertheless, all of these can occur without any evolution actually taking place, so I will be kind and still lump them together for now. So here are the correct classifications of the definitions. Definitions or parts of definitions in another color is what you left out.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only(added by edit) Notes: (1) this post just evaluates the information. If you want to skip over this, you can go to Message 73 where the data is summarized and the results discussed. (2) I've modified my definition slightly to be more specific about what kinds of change in species over time is involved: hereditary traits. This was implied before, especially with reference to the other variations - descent with modification, change in the frequency of alleles in populations over generations, etc. I've done this to be consistent with the scientific definitions of biological evolution used by Berkeley and the UofMich. See Message 73. I've also added the factor of {heredity} to the evaluation to be consistent with the other factors. Modifications are in pink below. Enjoy.
No you just claimed it. You did NOT provide any demonstration of it at all in any previous post. Only after I posted my evaluation did you bother to provide an accounting of your evaluation. We will now turn to that, seeing as you are wanting to only discuss definitions now. I'll note at the start that you are still misrepresenting the evidence. When an encyclopedia or article on evolution is cited, you don't search for where they say what you want to say and claim that is part of the definition - you look for the definition ("evolution is ...") statement and stop when they start discussing the application of that to the evidence. Likewise when a dictionary definition is used and there is an entry for "biol." then that is the entry to use (they are talking about the biology definition not the general definition).
How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? How is a species NOT changed by becoming a new species? How is a species NOT changed by a change in complexity? No, Development of new features IS change in species over time, Speciation IS change in species over time, Complexity IS change in species over time. You lump these together with other elements to misrepresent the definition given and misrepresent your results. This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin.
These are equivalent, as I have pointed out and used them several times to make just that point. Furthermore, not counting "change in species over time" when it is also included in any other definition presents a false misrepresentative under counting of it in the numbers of definitions.
So when I say
It is not a new claim but a consistent one that has been carried throughout the debate on my part. I also said:
And yet you still go and add back other parts into your evaluation that ARE part of the discussion and not the definition. That is misrepresenting what is the definition in those discussions. You do this again here even when it has already been pointed out as false misrepresentation of the definitions involved. The most blatant one of these is the Berkeley one. Let's cut to the chase: the disagreement is over whether "change in species over time" is a complete definition of the scientific theory.
Or they are just really using the scientific definition, and YOUR bias and misconceptions are hindering your understanding of the evidence.
So let's take them one at a time, focus on the definition that best represents the scientific definition that would be used in biology and see where that leads us. We will also look at whether the definition essentially consists of "change is species over time" (including change in the frequency of alleles, descent with modification, or the like), or whether some other element is seen as necessary. We will start with: (R) = "change in species over time" (and variations previously noted) OR I will post the text that applies plus other definitions and discussions down to where you add your elements so that all can see their relationships. Within these I will highlight in yellow what I feel is the definition part of these that applies to this debate. I will also highlight in orange what you added in your "evaluation" of the definitions.
We agree on this one. Just for reference we'll also look at the total definition given: quote: Note that the only definition that applies to biological evolution is the one listed as "biology" ... (R) (GG+)
Going again to the source (especially seeing as this one has changed again): quote: After the highlighted part is discussion of this definition and application of it. (R) (D-) (H+)
quote: After the highlighted part is discussion of this definition and application of it. We can argue over whether "many generations" is a lot of time, but this is also what we see with breeding of animals - that it takes many generations - so I can't see this as being a requirement for deep time. (R) (M-)(G+) (S-) (H-)
Going again to the full listing: quote: Appearance of living species would be the descent of living species from (no longer living) ancestors. Transformation of living species would be change from those ancestors. The separation line clearly distinguishes between the definition part and a discussion of that definition. The further discussion on the second page also clearly shows what they mean. (R) (B-)(GG-) (O-) (S+) (D-)
It kind of amazes me that you repeat this misrepresentation after it has already been uncovered in previous posts and repeated as evidence of such on your part. quote: Note the selective picking of elements that fit your preconceived notion of what the definition is rather than looking for what the article says is the definition: this is blatant misrepresentation of the definition here. After the highlighted part is discussion of this definition and application of it to the evidence ("one generation to the next" or "descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations"). The following "explanation" part then specifies "descent through genetic inheritance" and applies this to the whole fossil record as we know it. It discusses the application back to a first common ancestor, but the definition is "simply put" ... (R) (G-) (S+) (D-) (A-) (H-)
I have this on order for my library. Until I see it I take your presentation with a grain of salt. Tentatively (until verified), this involves change in species over time, plus a single common ancestor {added by edit} I now have this book from the library. What you have is the definition in the glossary, which also lists the pages where this is discussed: Looking at these (briefly), p 6 is the introduction and it discusses the difference between fact and theory, p 229 is the start of Section V: Evolution, and it discusses some of the historical theories, p 257 discusses "recapitulation" and the study of heredity in germ-cells, p 260 discusses the random probability distribution of mutations and a tendency for statis in stable environments, change in unstable environments, p 264 discusses 3 competing theories of evolution, p 267 says evolution is an application of basic scientific processes, and p319 involves a study of the changes in hemoglobin between humans and other apes. In none of those references is the descent from a single common ancestor at the origins of life necessary to the discussion of evolution. (R) (O+) (A+)
The full entry: quote: This is still change in species over time. The change from simpler to more complex is still change. Millions of years is also only the time span for the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo habilis, not that significant in the total evolutionary picture. This also does not relate to the different rates of evolution for different species, some of which go through many generations in a matter of weeks. (R) (M+) (C+) (H-)
This one is not available from my library, so I'll have to wait until I can get to the big city. Until then I will also take this presentation from you with a grain of salt. Tentatively (until verified), this involves change in species over time, plus an early common ancestor (R)t (B-) (A+)
This one gets a little long ... and I've left out some parts. quote: This is a discussion of Darwin's theory of evolution and not the modern science one. Furthermore, the summary section would list the elements that are critical to it, and that summary is all about "change in species over time" ... But that is not all: the previous lesson in the series has the current scientific definitions: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html quote: Both of those definitions of biological evolution involve "change in species over time" and that is what the University of Michigan really teaches as the definitions of evolution. You completely ignore the definitions listed for evolution and go on until you can find something - anything - that meets your false misconception of what the definition should be. This is not the way honest research is done. (R) (L-)(GG+) (S+) (T-) (D+)
Here you go mixing non-scientific definitions with the scientific one. We will look at this the same way we looked at definition #(1) above: quote: Note that, as for definition #(1) above, the only definition that applies to biological evolution is the one listed as "biology" ... and it's relation to phylogeny. The one you added is very general and does NOT apply to biology. (R) (GG+) (S+)
Again we agree, but we will still look at this the same way we looked at definition #(1) above: quote: The second definition applies to biology. (R)
Again we will look at this the same way we looked at definition #(1) above: quote: Note that, as for definition #(1) above, the only definition that applies to biological evolution are the ones listed as 4a phylogeny and 4b theory ... of change in species over time ... and the one you added is about GROWTH, not evolution. Another blatant misrepresentation. (R) (GG+) (S+)
And again ... quote: The second (and yes we can use both parts - similar to previous definitions) applies to the biological process. The first definition applies to the development of disease - cancer - and not to the evolution of organisms. Note also that a direction of change could be from {A} to {B} or from {B} to {A} in the first definition. (R) (GG+) (S+)
Again the full definitions list: quote: This is still change in species over time. Compare this to the UMich definitions. (R) (S+) (T+)
Again the full listing: quote: Descent with modification, changes in alleles within populations, change in species over time ... (R) (GG+) (S+)
The full listing: quote: This doesn't really describe what is going on or what the process is. Is it change in species over time or something else? We can't really tell from this (too concise?). They also list a number of other links for comparison. So I also looked up "evolve" with this result: quote: And "speciation" ... quote: And "Darwinism" ... quote: And "develop" ... quote: Develop over successive generations, the formation of new and distinct species, by natural selection, the process by which different kinds of living organism start to exist ... I don't see anything in this that is NOT change in species over time. (R) (GG+) (S+)
The full listing: quote: We have two choices - change in species over time (millions of years is the time span for the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo habilis), OR change in species over time (a gradual process). This later one means that "millions of years" is not a necessary component of the definition. (R) (M+/2)
Again ... quote: Do I need to say it? You even omitted where it said "(general)" in your misrepresentation of the definition. Do you really think this is valid? (R) (GG+)
Again ... quote: Electronic weaponry is NOT biological evolution, thus this 3rd definition is general and does not apply to biological evolution. (R) (S+)
Another one where we agree, but still the full listing is: quote: And as before (R) (GG+)
The listing for evolution: quote: The listing for "evolve" quote: The listing for "theory of evolution" quote: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD and MurkyWaters only |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| To be blunt however, this debate is overall becoming a colossal waste of time ... |
Frankly I don't understand why you would object that I would "tie my hands" with a definition of evolution that you feel is inadequate to explain long term evolution, as it should make my position more difficult to argue if anything.
I have made several compromises, but see no change in your position at all: that is not debate, it is just spouting your position with your fingers in your ears ignoring the conflicting evidence.
It is time to move on with the issue of macroevolution as a product of microevolution, accumulating change over successive speciation events. As noted above we have evidence of microevolution producing change in species over time with foraminifera (Message 25}, pelycodus (Message 50}, and horses (Message 68}. Here is a fuller presentation of horse evolution and why it adds up to more than just microevolution between species:
| Message 185(Common creationist position quoted from another thread) 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, posture and behavior similar to a modern small forest deer to a single toe on each leg grass grazing, predominantly plains dweller the size of, well, a modern horse.
 Click to enlarge |
 Click to enlarge |
When is the amount of change accumulated over time sufficient for classification as Macroevolution? Where do you draw the line?
From: Eohippus
(The coloration of course, is pure speculation.)
Eohippus 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:
 Click to enlarge |
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.
| Message 185(Common creationist position quoted from another thread) ...there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place. |
 Click to enlarge |
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.
I begin to feel that I am arguing with the walls as you have made no corrections to falsified positions and appear to have abandoned the argument altogether rather than face the evidence you need to rebut or accept. If that is the case I would be willing to ask the admins to open this debate up to another creationist to follow-up where you have left off.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : banner
| This message is a reply to: | |||
| Message 70 by MurkyWaters, posted 03-26-2007 9:51 PM | MurkyWaters has replied | ||
| Replies to this message: | |||
| Message 88 by MurkyWaters, posted 06-24-2007 1:40 AM | RAZD has taken no action | ||
 |  |
|
Message 75 of 121 (404899)
06-10-2007 12:40 PM |
Reply to: Message 70 by MurkyWaters 03-26-2007 9:51 PM |
|
| This message is a reply to: | |||
| Message 70 by MurkyWaters, posted 03-26-2007 9:51 PM | MurkyWaters has replied | ||
| Replies to this message: | |||
| Message 89 by MurkyWaters, posted 06-24-2007 2:16 AM | RAZD has taken no action | ||
| |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022
