|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD | ||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome back seekingfirstthekingdom,
and my caps lock has decided to not work. I think I can struggle through that. More separation between sentences and more paragraphs would help.
even the turtles with no shells that you posted as "proof" would need many transitional forms in order to show progression from no shell to fully shelled. Not at "proof" but as actual evidence of reality. This fossil exists, these organisms used to exist. And actually it was half-shelled - there was shell on the bottom but not on top. Here it is again:
Scientific American on-line "How did turtles get their shells?" (Nov 26, 2008 01:14 PM)
quote:(color for empHAsis) That puts it half way between no shell and shelled. That you now want fossils between no shell and this fossil, and between this fossil and modern turtles, means you are just arguing the "god of the gaps" typical creationist dodge.
that type of turtle can be easily explained away as another variety that became extinct. Which it is, a variety that is older than all fossils of turtles with both shells, and younger than those with no shell. I agree that it is easily explained by the evolution of turtles from no shell reptiles to fully shelled turtles. There could even be several species that lived at the same time with partial shells and only one evolved into modern turtles. This still shows how existing parts of an organism were changed over time, generation by generation, into a new feature that did not exist before.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. Seeing as the term "kind" has no definition this means nothing. Seeing as you have not established that any genetic boundaries exist, we are left with a reductionist interpretation that you group all life into one "kind" ... past and present. For instance you could mean that the fossil record point to all life staying within the boundaries instituted: it all has the same DNA structure, so that is what defines "kind" ... and evolution is the process from that original creation to the present day. To mean something different you (a) need to define what you mean by "kind" and (b) establish that some actual barrier exists that blocks mutation at a certain point. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
seekingfirstthekingdom
Ignore coyote's post, it will be deleted by moderators as this is a great debate thread.
correction.morons will believe anything.im quite happy to believe science until it comes into conflict with the bible.this is where we differ.you hold science as the ultimate authority ,i do not despite all the good(and bad) its done for mankind. I would also recommend against using terms like morons.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
do you have a shorter name to use? S1tk for instance?
... the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas:
Berkeley - evolution 101:
quote: From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal. When you look at the fossil record the ancestors of these animals are less similar than these two, so they have been evolving separately to be similar towards a common end. added by edit: The alternative is that all mammals back to the first mammal are one "kind" - thus including not only duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, koala bears and echidna, but elephants, whales, giraffes, and mole rats ... to say nothing of humans. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe last P by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk (if you don't mind my using that abbreviation)
mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious. ummm, no it isn't. Are therapsids mammals or reptiles? Is archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? Are dinosaurs reptiles? Is Tiktaalik rosea a fish or an amphibian?
you are misrepresenting my position No, it is that I don't understand it. If you agree that all life shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation then we can agree that evolution exists, and that all life forms evolve. Then we can move on to the question/s of the descent of daughter populations from common parent populations, and where\when this pattern of common descent, with modification, first starts.
the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right? What is a "cross-over" and how is the coelacanth one?
the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record. Again, this is a meaningless statement without a definition of "kinds" that holds up to the evidence. Populations descend from previous populations, with modification as they inherit different mutations, and different ecologies select for different adaptation of organisms to the ecologies. All such populations will necessarily be of the same type\group\form\kind\etc as their parent populations. They evolve as they descend, so the descendants are different from the ancestors, but mammals don't become birds (they become bats, another example of convergent evolution). Even the coelacanths have evolved over the last 65 million years. So now we are talking about transitions rather than your amazing magic yeast? That's called moving the goalposts when you cannot answer the questions. added by edit:
mammal. ... As noted above (after edit) this includes an extremely large and diverse group of organisms, including man. Can you tell be what kind of time period was necessary to generate this diversity? The first mammal (or protomammal) in the fossil record is from the transition from synapsid to therapsid:
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIESquote: This is where the ear evolved from a single bone attached to a multi-bone jaw into a structure composed of three bones separated from a single bone jaw, characteristic of all mammals. The series of transitional fossils includes several that have two jaw joint, both the old reptile joint and the new mammal joint, while the various bones change in dimensions and positions. This restructuring was already well underway by the mid-Permian Period, some 271 to 260 million years ago. Note that therapsids predate dinosaurs quote: Also see: Palaeos: Page not foundand Palaeos: Page not found From an excellent interactive website that you can search up and down the evolutionary path from synapsid to modern mammal Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end info by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
continuing
once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something. Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line. That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.
(added by edit?) ill ... try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized. It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it. You also need to study "cursorial hunting" Persistence hunting - Wikipedia
quote: Dogs (whoops I mean wolves) use this method of hunting. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added in response to added material by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk, do you know what the term "gish gallop" means? It means piling on a bunch of questions and assertions without answering the ones you have to answer for YOUR position to be valid.
no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird. The greenish warblers are evidence of the minimal amount of evolution necessary to achieve reproductive isolation, so it was not intended to show the transition from reptile to bird. You have moved the goalposts again. The transition from reptile to bird first goes through the transition from reptile to dinosaurs, and then one branch of the dinosaurs, the therapods, evolves into birds (some people consider birds to be living dinosaurs). You do realize, don't you, that the evolution of feathers by dinosaurs is becoming increasingly well known as more and more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers are found? Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
quote: The early feathers are symmetrical, while modern bird feathers have become asymmetrical as this slight change provides improved flight characteristics.
and http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html or just google "feathered dinosaur" We now know that feathers evolved long before the first flying therapod, and only later were they adapted to flight.
(added by edit?) can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird? Not at all what I said, the transition from reptile to bird includes ALL the dinosaurs in between. Here is some additional information on the transitional elements: Dinosauria On-Line
quote: Shared characteristics, elements that existed in the ancestor dinosaurs and which are preserved in archeopteryx. Several (jaws with teeth) that are lost in modern birds. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added to respond to added question Edited by RAZD, : added transition link and quote by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk
you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position? What? Again the information on Pelycodus is provided to demonstrate the evolution of the population and that speciation is recorded in the fossil record. You can find this same evidence on several different sites. Pelycodus: gradulastic
Notice that it says "[diagram after Gingerich]" and this refers to the original science journal article by Philip D. Gingerich (U of M). You can read one of his papers here http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/...m/2027.42/48507/2/ID358.pdf Are you claiming that Pelycodus speciation is a hoax? Or are you refering to Don Lindsay's article on the Piltdown man? Did you read the article? Do you really want to change the topic to fraud\hoaxes now?
please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most. All of life. There is not one aspect of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from pre-history and archeology, from geology, physics and paleontology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record, that contradicts or challenges the theory of evolution and of the descent (with modification) of existing life-forms from the simple single cell forms that appear in the first rocks that are known to carry evidence of life, some 3.5 million years ago. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : graphic missed before Edited by RAZD, : added to last P by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk
i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind? Not really, it is just one of many pieces of information that fit evolution. Notice the near perfect continuity of fossil lineages.
and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution. Take your time. You might want to read this: Foraminifera - Wikipedia and note the taxonomic classification:Phylum: Foraminifera see http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.htmlfor how it fits in the picture. for reference the phylum for humans is Chordata, animals with a spinal chord, which includes fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals ... a wide range of life forms Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : finished by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
note that I have added bits at the end of Message 35 and Message 36 as it appears that you added to the end of your post after I had written them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey S1tk, hope you had a good time, and are ready to delve back into the fray.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. Another example of convergent evolution, one that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth, is the killer whale and the white shark:
quote: Great white shark - Wikipedia
quote:(except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...) It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar sharks, which are from an ancient order:
Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... or does this make Chordata the "kind" division? The ultimate conclusion is - once again - that all life is of one "kind" ... as shown by the structure of DNA in all life, that there are no apparent genetic barriers that divide life into two or more groups of organisms. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ,, by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey S1tk,
I found an on-line copy of a paper by Gingrich with a review of the fossil data for pelycodus and another version of his chart:
SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE ADAPIDAE (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) IN NORTH AMERICAVol. 24, No. 22, p. 245-279 (13 text-figs.) August 15,1977 I want to quote one particular section as it mirrors what I've said:
quote: Here's the graphic:
quote: Always good to go to an original source, if you can. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey S1tk
this tends to render most of your examples that you have provided rather moot. Denial of evidence is like that. What the evidence shows is that there is no genetic barrier to what organisms can evolve. A placental mammal can become a flying squirrel, while a marsupial can become a sugar glider; a mammal can become an orca, while a cartilaginous fish can become a white shark. You can dodge the issue or you can address it and show that there is some mechanism that actually stops evolution.
i have a problem with. .1.simple lifeforms like bacteria being able to become superior lifeforms.2.reptiles being able to become mammals,especially reptiles becoming birds. .3.habilis being a link in mans ancestry. Curiously, the fact that you have a problem has absolutely no effect on the validity and reality of the fossil record, nor does it stop evolution as one organism evolves into another, generation by generation. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hi S1tk
never heard of fish that can survive outside of water for periods of time? Yes, several kinds of fish have evolved the ability to breath air. Mud guppies for instance. However this was not true for the first fishes.
also show me in clear fossil form how this representative of your transitional beliefs evolved from fish to land if thats what you are getting at? This is what makes Tiktaalik a transitional fossil (click on link to read - cannot copy text).
This article also discusses the transitional features that exist in Tiktaalik and later tetrapods and ones that don't exist in previous fish forms.
quote: Note that a transitional fossil is defined as one that shares characteristics with older life forms and with later life forms, and that the characteristics shared with later life forms did not exist during the time of the older life forms, while they develop further in later life forms.
you seem to know a lot more about this "transitional" creature than scientists who have studied it and have decided to put it on a seperate branch rather than a direct ancestor between reptile and bird. See definition of transitional fossil above, and demonstrate how archaeopteryx does not meet these criteria. Next cite your sources for these scientists and what they actually say, so we know you are not citing some creationist hoax site or people that don't know what they are talking about. I suspect your sources are of a questionable nature. http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.htmlhttp://www.toarchive.org/...opteryx/info.html#avian-features http://www.toarchive.org/...teryx/info.html#reptile-features quote: It meets the definition of transitional.
cold blooded probably reptilian.warm blooded probably mammal.i have issues with evolutionary artistry and creative license.lets see some actual fossils please.and without step by step fossil links to prove this is a link,it becomes just another variety. Again, the fact that you have issues does not mean that therapsids are not transitionals showing generation by generation the adaptation of features that don't exist in reptiles and that become more and more developed in later generations. Your opinion does not change, alter nor affect the fossil record in any way, nor does it invalidate the transitional development of fossils in time. Features that did not exist in previous forms are seen developing in transitional fossils, becoming more developed in later fossils, and eventually reaching the stage of development seen in life today. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey S1tk,
i find the 95% figure misleading .to me theres a huge difference between chimps and man. Curiously the natural world in completely unaffected by what you "find," and what your opinion is, of the degree of difference between man and chimp.
you ignored my example of evidence of young male pharoahs 3000 odd years old that show no sign of being more primitive. Because it is irrelevant, as you can go back 30,000 years to cro-magnon and find little difference to modern humans while there is detectable difference between them and neanderthals: Early European modern humans - Wikipedia
quote: Are neanderthals human or ape? (or both?) ... the DNA difference between Cro-Magnon\sapiens and neanderthal is almost the same as the difference between Cro-Magnon\sapiens and chimp ... and the difference between neanderthal and chimp (ie there are different differences to neanderthal than to chimp).
dna similarities are due to being designed to cohabit. Another wild assertion not supported by the evidence. Again we look at convergent evolution:
These guys are similar, but have quite difference DNA sequences, so their similarity is NOT due to common design elements. Curiously it is not just that DNA is ~95% similar, but the places similarities occur that are completely unnecessary:
common damaged genesquote: Care to discuss the design that copies the failure to produce vitamin C is due to exactly the same damage in exactly the same DNA sequence in chimps and humans? Care to discuss the design that includes a damaged copy of a gene that is functional in other mammals, related by more distant common ancestors? Why does your designer copy something that doesn't work?
interesting strategy.you are using chimp behaviour to justify that habilis isnt a chimp.chimps use stone tools as well according to jane goodall. Some scientists think chimps should be included as a hominid.
except you would need a lot of 3.5 foot high small brained chimps to take anything down.how many fossils of handyman have been found in the area again? Again this is just your opinion, and irrelevant. Number of fossils does not equal the number of organisms related to the fossil. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey S1tk
whats this got to do with what i specifically asked for regarding reptile to mammal? Let's not start playing games now. You can very easily track the posts back to Message 21 and your claim that
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. Convergent evolution invalidates that concept, as you see completely different lineages converging on the same form. With the flying squirrels and sugar gliders, one is a placental mammal and the other is a marsupial. With the orcas and the white sharks, one is a mammal and one is a cartilaginous fish. For these forms to be limited to one "kind" by some mystical "genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis" means that these organisms must be of the same "kind" ... or such convergence would be blocked.
secondly give me time to research your claims regarding how closely related the shark and orca actually are.its so glaringly obvious to me there are barriers inbetween reptiles and mammals.surely you must know this. What I know is that the difference between shark and orca should be even MORE "glaringly obvious" to you than the difference between reptile and mammal.
not to the extent you are claiming.the reality is you are taking tenuous examples,ignoring the obvious and attempting to put pieces where they dont fit.theres nothing in the natural world that backs you up.nothing. Yes, denial is like that. Curiously denial does not mean that you have shown that the examples are tenuous, or that they are put in the "wrong" place, so we just have your opinion. On the other hand you could attempt to show how a genetic barrier would work, and then we can look to see if that in fact is supported by the evidence. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024