Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 256 of 352 (507468)
05-05-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Taq
05-04-2009 1:11 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
Why aren't mammals, reptiles, and birds all in separate phyla? Who gets to decide these things? What are the criteria that are used?
Why don't you tell me? Are the criteria based on a consensus of scientists that see legitimate differences between the phyla? To get some idea of some of the unique body plans during the Cambrian you can search the phylum, Opabina, Wiwaxia, and Pikaia.

As it should be given the fact that the genomes we are studying are hte product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. You want to pretend that modern genomes are the product of accidents. They aren't. They are the product of a known process that is not accidental. That process is natural selection. What science has shown is that there is no such thing as a novel structure. All the structures we see are modifications of pre-existing structures. Our limbs are modified fish fins, as one example. Two of our middle ear bones are modified reptillian jaw bones, as another example.
You are a true evolutionist. I guess you can also explain away punctuated equilibrium. I must say that this is getting to a point that is beyond my level of knowledge. However, let me present an idea. What if the creator decided to fashion other organisms out parts of others? Wouldn't this explain punctuated equilibrium? I could also ask you to produce evidence for the precursor structures of the trilobite. If they are not novel then they should be in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 05-04-2009 1:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 05-05-2009 3:38 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 257 of 352 (507471)
05-05-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
05-04-2009 3:49 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
You're referencing a website with thousands of webpages. Is there any particular webpage at TalkOrigins that you meant to reference?
Response to Luskin
Furthermore, we can make predictions based on hypotheses about how body plans are set up. We know that Hox genes are central to this process. One prediction that can be made is that organisms with different body plans ought to have correlated changes in the way their Hox genes are expressed, or in the way Hox genes regulate genes further downstream. These predictions have been tested and are currently being tested in labs around the world.
Just after the first species of a new phylum has emerged, how many species would you expect there to be in that phylum? Wouldn't you expect just one? And there wouldn't be anything unusual about that, right?
I would agree with you if I was stuck in your paradigm.

Phyla were created based on differences we see in the characteristics of creatures today. These differences were nowhere near so apparent in their ancestors of 500 million years ago, and in many cases the modern distinctions we see today did not even exist.
We can go around and around but I think that our levels of knowledge are insufficient in order to present good cases from either side. Were many of the creatures of the Cambrian truely novel? According to Tag they are not because you are both operating from similar theoretical evolutionary paradigms.

70 million years ago the largest and most sophisticated mammal was catlike, and today the most sophisticated mammal is a person and the largest is a whale, quite a huge amount of change. Compare this to the amount of change during the equally long period of the Cambrian explosion, where basically you had soft-bodied worms at the beginning, and by the end you had more complicated worms, some with hard body parts, and a larger variety of body plans.
Good point. You see I will give someone credit where credit is due. I will contempate it.
By the way, the sedimentary rock of the Cambrian was conducive for preserving soft body parts of various organisms such as jellyfish. I don't know if this was the same for the Edicarian fauna but I don't see why it shouldn't have been.
I think I will bow out for now. I don't have the knowledge base or the understanding of genetics for sufficiently presenting my case. And none of you wish to question some of my other paradigms. I have learned a couple of things. One reason why I debate some of you is because I wish to understand myself better. I believe rational thought is one of the keys to a successful life. I like reading material from Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe and Robin Collins and others. I find their arguments to be more rational than some evolutionists. I do think there is at least one evolutionist who is fairly irrational. His initials are K.M. I do find some creationists irrational also.
I don't see any good reason to fear science. I think that this would be irrational. It is more rational to fear those who use science or religion for morally destructive purposes. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my other posts. I am not attempting to push any agenda on someone who doesn't wish to hear it. This is of course a debate forum and if someone doesn't want to participate then they are free to go somewhere else.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 05-04-2009 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Stile, posted 05-05-2009 12:10 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 05-05-2009 2:45 PM traderdrew has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 258 of 352 (507474)
05-05-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
05-05-2009 11:55 AM


Other paradigms
traderdrew writes:
I think I will bow out for now. I don't have the knowledge base or the understanding of genetics for sufficiently presenting my case. And none of you wish to question some of my other paradigms.
This site is kept fairly strict in the "stay on topic" sense of threads.
When nobody questions your other paradigms it may just mean that they think it would be off-topic for this particular thread. It's quite possible that many people would like to discuss many of your other paradigms more indepth, but they are saving such discussion for another thread.
Feel free to look around the other threads and areas of this site. It is very well organized (thanks to the strict on-topicness), and covers a vast array of different issues.
I'm sure you'll be able to find someone willing to discuss pretty much anything you'd like. Just try to remember to keep different topics within their different areas.
...this off-topic post was brought to you by the number 4, and the letter I

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 05-05-2009 11:55 AM traderdrew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 259 of 352 (507488)
05-05-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
05-05-2009 11:55 AM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
Your citation from TalkOrigins has nothing do to with what you claimed back in Message 250:
traderdrew in Message 250 writes:
The people at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy know there needed to be a flexible genome.
I asked you where at TalkOrigins they said this and you now reply:
Response to Luskin
Furthermore, we can make predictions based on hypotheses about how body plans are set up. We know that Hox genes are central to this process. One prediction that can be made is that organisms with different body plans ought to have correlated changes in the way their Hox genes are expressed, or in the way Hox genes regulate genes further downstream. These predictions have been tested and are currently being tested in labs around the world.
Which says nothing about "a flexible genome". The word "flexible" doesn't even appear on that webpage, and your excerpt comes from a section on Haeckel's Embryos, not the Cambrian explosion. And where did you get the other nonsense about a phylum/species ratio. Neither "phyla" nor "phylum" appear on that webpage, either. How is it that you can go to a webpage whose content appears to be accurate and reasonable and draw outlandish conclusions?
Just after the first species of a new phylum has emerged, how many species would you expect there to be in that phylum? Wouldn't you expect just one? And there wouldn't be anything unusual about that, right?
I would agree with you if I was stuck in your paradigm.
Ah, I see, when people disagree with you it's because they're stuck in a paradigm. This must save you a lot of trouble learning anything about what you're talking about since all you have to do is declare that someone's stuck in a paradigm and you're all done.
We can go around and around but I think that our levels of knowledge are insufficient in order to present good cases from either side.
The evidence indicates you're half right.
By the way, the sedimentary rock of the Cambrian was conducive for preserving soft body parts of various organisms such as jellyfish.
This is untrue. It doesn't matter a great deal to this discussion whether preservation of soft body parts was common, but it wasn't. You can look this stuff up so easily that I don't understand why you're wasting everyone's time with obviously wrong information.
I don't have the knowledge base or the understanding of genetics for sufficiently presenting my case.
In other words, you formed an opinion before doing any research.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 05-05-2009 11:55 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:15 PM Percy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 260 of 352 (507495)
05-05-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by traderdrew
05-05-2009 11:24 AM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
Why don't you tell me? Are the criteria based on a consensus of scientists that see legitimate differences between the phyla?
There are legitimate differences between species of the same genera, and yet they do not get their own phyla.
When Linnaeus devised the system so that life could be put into groups. At the level of Kingdom and Phylum Linnaeus wanted these to be very large groups that incorporate a lot of organisms so the number of shared characteristics needed to be in each phylum is quite low. Compare this to genera which require the members of a genus to share a lot of characteristics.
Evolutionarily, these taxonomic levels are best described temporally. If a lineage has been around for a long time then it will probably be described as a phylum. If a lineage has been around for a very short time then it will be described as a genus. As one would expect from an evolutionary process, there is more diversity in a phylum then there is in a genus. For example, a genus of trout has less diversity than the phylum Cephalochordata of which trout are a member of as well. The cephalochordate lineage has been around for a lot longer than the trout lineage.
What you also seem to miss is that evolution is descent with modification. You are what your ancestors were, plus modification. If your ancestor was a cephalochordate you too are a ceaphalochordate. You can't evolve out of your ancestry. Therefore, evolution can not produce new phyla once the phyla have been defined by humans.
I guess you can also explain away punctuated equilibrium.
What needs to be explained away? Punk eek is an observed mechanism.
However, let me present an idea. What if the creator decided to fashion other organisms out parts of others? Wouldn't this explain punctuated equilibrium?
No, it wouldn't. Punctuated equilibria produces a nested hierarchy, being an evolutionary mechanism and all. There is nothing forcing a creator to stick to this branching pattern. For example, if this creator has created both bats and birds then why don't we see a bat with feathers or a bird with teats? Why do we exclusively see a nested hierarchy, be it phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibria?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by traderdrew, posted 05-05-2009 11:24 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:58 PM Taq has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 261 of 352 (507587)
05-06-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Percy
05-05-2009 2:45 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
I must say that you also equivocate my points. You do this by spinning tangents off of them in order to make people read what you want them to read. You are just a lot more crafty at doing it than many others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 05-05-2009 2:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 3:25 PM traderdrew has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 262 of 352 (507589)
05-06-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 3:15 PM


Where's the Beef?
Your post doesn't answer Percy's points at all. You need to actually deal with what he posts and show why they are wrong not just say they are.
Have another go at it, k?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:15 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:26 PM AdminNosy has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 263 of 352 (507590)
05-06-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by AdminNosy
05-06-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Where's the Beef?
OK I apologise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 3:25 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 3:31 PM traderdrew has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 264 of 352 (507591)
05-06-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 3:26 PM


apology?
I don't think there is anything to exactly apologize for (other than you and I have between us wasted (so far) 1 % of the posts this thread will be allowed).
You just need to go a bit slower and take the time to organize your thoughts and your rebuttals to points made.
The core of Percy's response is the larger paragraph commenting on the talkorigins article that you referenced. You never touched on that. It is possible that the correct thing for you to do is simply say you were wrong and withdraw what you said before or post something else to support your original claim.
Some of the rest of his post was guilty of the same heinous crime as yours but at least he had meat in his post as well.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:26 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 4:08 PM AdminNosy has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 265 of 352 (507593)
05-06-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Taq
05-05-2009 3:38 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
There are legitimate differences between species of the same genera, and yet they do not get their own phyla.
No problem there.
When Linnaeus devised the system so that life could be put into groups. At the level of Kingdom and Phylum Linnaeus wanted these to be very large groups that incorporate a lot of organisms so the number of shared characteristics needed to be in each phylum is quite low. Compare this to genera which require the members of a genus to share a lot of characteristics.
If the number of shared characteristics between each phylum is quite low then, shouldn't this tell you that the body plans of various organisms in the Cambrian are unique?
Evolutionarily, these taxonomic levels are best described temporally. If a lineage has been around for a long time then it will probably be described as a phylum. If a lineage has been around for a very short time then it will be described as a genus. As one would expect from an evolutionary process, there is more diversity in a phylum then there is in a genus.
I think I know what you are trying to convey now. You are saying that these differences are based partly upon their arrivals within fossil record rather than differences based on cladistics. One problem with that is finding the original ancestors to some of these species in which there arrival appears to be sudden. Another problem with that is that it ignores the legitimate differences and characteristics between the phylum during the Cambrian. The phylum mollusca may prove to be an interesting study in order to understand it. We have a diverse amount of them today and they existed during the Cambrian.
What you also seem to miss is that evolution is descent with modification. You are what your ancestors were, plus modification. If your ancestor was a cephalochordate you too are a ceaphalochordate. You can't evolve out of your ancestry. Therefore, evolution can not produce new phyla once the phyla have been defined by humans.
I don't miss it at all. I say that I don't know rather than say that this was the way it happened. By the way, those fish with legs you wrote about were tetrapods. It is good that you believe in punctuated equilibrium because their arrival doesn't make sense under neo-Darwinism. Why would a fish abandon its aquatic habitat under the influence of random mutations and natural selection? There must have been constant pressure for them to leave it. I would think that that these mutant fish would have faced competition from various creatures more suited to survive on land. It also seems to ignore sudden climatic changes that change ecosystems. It makes more sense to me for amphibians to have taken to the water. But once again, that evolutionary paradigm makes people see it as a bottom up process.
Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 05-05-2009 3:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 6:29 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 266 of 352 (507595)
05-06-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by AdminNosy
05-06-2009 3:31 PM


The Cambrian
Indeed. It gets frustrating at times when they ignore some of my stronger claims but I try to stay on target with their comments. By the way, science knows there were at least 10,000 species that existed during the Cambrian. And why would http://www.talkorigins bother mentioning hox genes in one of their pages on the Cambrain if they didn't recognize the diversity between the phylum or if there was no need for a flexible genome?
I think I was wrong in saying that the sedimentary rock of the Cambrian was conducive to fossilizing the soft body organisms such as jellyfish. When I think about this again, there are of course fossils of soft bodies organisms during the Cambrian but that doesn't mean that all of the sedimentary strata of the Cambrian was conducive to preserving these creatures. So I don't know for sure. However, there have been very fine details that were preserved of some of the hard bodies organisms. Does this mean that something such as a jellyfish couldn't be preserved along with them?
Edited by traderdrew, : Minor editing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 3:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 5:18 PM traderdrew has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 267 of 352 (507603)
05-06-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 4:08 PM


Re: The Cambrian
traderdrew writes:
It gets frustrating at times when they ignore some of my stronger claims...
While everyone has some preliminary ideas about the strength of their claims, the only way to determine their true strength is under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. We all find it frustrating when what we think are our most important points are missed or ignored, but it's a good idea to resist the impulse to assume the fault lies with others. Regarding your claims, I didn't understand some of them (and said so), and without that understanding perhaps what you thought were your important points weren't apparent.
I'm sure were all sympathetic because we've all been there, but all anyone can do on any side of a debate is ask questions and give honest feedback and assessments.
By the way, science knows there were at least 10,000 species that existed during the Cambrian.
Does science really know this? I honestly don't know. Anyway, whether true or not, are you saying that it's too many or too few?
And why would http://www.talkorigins bother...
You're again linking to an entire website instead of the specific page. Also, your link is broken because you forgot the ".org" on the end. The webpage you originally referenced was this one:
And about this webpage you continue:
...mentioning hox genes in one of their pages on the Cambrain...
I guess life in the "Cambrain" was pretty smart?
The section you cited wasn't about the Cambrian, it was about Haeckel's embryos.
... if they didn't recognize the diversity between the phylum or if there was no need for a flexible genome?
This claim still makes no sense to me. How could the mere mention of Hox genes imply a recognition of "the diversity between the phylum or if there was no need for a flexible genome?" I don't know what the term "the diversity between the phylum" means, either. "Phylum" is singular, by the way. "Flexible genome" is another unfamiliar term. It seems imprecise, making it very difficult to gage what you're trying to say.
About fossil preservation, I can't answer your question about how conditions in the Cambrian compare to other periods regarding how conducive they were to the preservation of soft body parts. Generally you can assume that soft body parts are much less likely to become fossilized than hard body parts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 4:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 PM Percy has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 268 of 352 (507610)
05-06-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 3:58 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
If the number of shared characteristics between each phylum is quite low then, shouldn't this tell you that the body plans of various organisms in the Cambrian are unique?
I am talking about shared characteristics within the phylum. For all of the species within a phylum the number of shared characteristics is much lower than the shared characteristics within a genus. Compare a lancelet to a bear. They only share a few features such as a notochord, cephalization, and a few organs. Other than that they are quite different. However, both the lancelet and the bear are in the same phylum. Now compare a brown bear to a polar bear. Both in the same genus and they share a lot of characteristics.
The goal of Linnaean taxonomy is to get things in groups that are easier to handle based on shared characteristics. That's it. That's why it doesn't make any sense when you ask why evolution did not produce new phyla over the last 200 million years. The would obviously be in the same phyla as their ancestors were, no matter how much they changed.
Also, the "uniqueness" of a body plan is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to get picky, every human has a unique body plan that is their own. How else can we tell each other apart. At the most general level, all life shares characteristics so no single organism is uniqe. Both are extremes, but you can see why "unique" is a rather subjective measurement.
One problem with that is finding the original ancestors to some of these species in which there arrival appears to be sudden.
The problem with any fossil is putting it in a direct lineage. It's impossible to do. Cladistics is the only solution where species are never put in a straight line between two others. Fossils don't come with birth certificates. The only thing we can do is organize life by shared characteristics, or in the case of cladistics by synapomorphies.
As for the sudden appearance of fossils, how else are they supposed to appear? Are they supposed to fade in and out of existence as we look at them? Are they supposed to morph into different shapes between their ancestral and descendant morphologies as we look at them?
Another problem with that is that it ignores the legitimate differences and characteristics between the phylum during the Cambrian.
What about the similarities? Are phyla not part of a cohesive taxonimic kingdom? Does not all life share characteristics?
The phylum mollusca may prove to be an interesting study in order to understand it. We have a diverse amount of them today and they existed during the Cambrian.
The same for cephalochordates. We can find them in the Cambrian and they are still around today. In fact, we humans are cephalochordates.
By the way, those fish with legs you wrote about were tetrapods. It is good that you believe in punctuated equilibrium because their arrival doesn't make sense under neo-Darwinism. Why would a fish abandon its aquatic habitat under the influence of random mutations and natural selection? There must have been constant pressure for them to leave it. I would think that that these mutant fish would have faced competition from various creatures more suited to survive on land.
The only animals on land prior to the emergence of vertebrate tetrapods were arthropods. There wasn't much competition for the niches that tetrapods are capable of filling. Also, these early tetrapods appear to be adapted to shallow and brackish water that held very little oxygen. Their ability to extract oxygen from the air was more than likely an adapation for shallow water environments. Given the abundance of prey (arthropods) on land and the competition in the water I don't think it is much of a stretch at all, and not at all a problem for evolution.
You might also want to take a look at modern fish species that are semi-terrestrial. Lungfish and mudskippers are two perfect examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 3:58 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 8:03 PM Taq has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 269 of 352 (507618)
05-06-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Percy
05-06-2009 5:18 PM


Re: The Cambrian
If you go back to the post before these circles began, you will find a part on hox genes on that talkorigins page. Look at the 5th response.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2009 8:18 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 05-06-2009 9:54 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 270 of 352 (507621)
05-06-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Taq
05-06-2009 6:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
Also, the "uniqueness" of a body plan is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to get picky, every human has a unique body plan that is their own. How else can we tell each other apart. At the most general level, all life shares characteristics so no single organism is uniqe. Both are extremes, but you can see why "unique" is a rather subjective measurement.
It might be somewhat subjective but I think the lack of differences actually strengthens my arguement. This is because some of the creatures of the Cambrain have features quite unlike anything that has been found after that era. So you see, am I going to take your word for it or a consensus of scientists?

The problem with any fossil is putting it in a direct lineage. It's impossible to do. Cladistics is the only solution where species are never put in a straight line between two others. Fossils don't come with birth certificates. The only thing we can do is organize life by shared characteristics, or in the case of cladistics by synapomorphies.
Cladistics are not the only way. I have read about another study called molecular comparisons. Here is part of some documented work of a molecular comparison from the Discovery Institute. As we see in the link below, cladistics may say one thing but when they are contrasted with molecular comparisons, it may place the theoretical evolutionary chain in question.
Darwin of the Gaps | Discovery Institute

"On morphological grounds, evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen proposed in the 1960s that modern whales are descended from an extinct group of hyena-like animals.13 In the 1990s, molecular comparisons suggested that whales are more closely related to hippopotamuses 14. In 2001, however, evolutionary biologist Kenneth D. Rose reported that substantial discrepancies remain between the morphological and molecular evidence.

Interesting stuff isn't it?

The only animals on land prior to the emergence of vertebrate tetrapods were arthropods. There wasn't much competition for the niches that tetrapods are capable of filling. Also, these early tetrapods appear to be adapted to shallow and brackish water that held very little oxygen. Their ability to extract oxygen from the air was more than likely an adapation for shallow water environments. Given the abundance of prey (arthropods) on land and the competition in the water I don't think it is much of a stretch at all, and not at all a problem for evolution.
You got me on that one but, even though they found Tiktaalik, there isn't enough evidence (that convinces me) that there was a smooth transition between tetapods and their precursors. Take a look at all of their limbs of each creature of their evolutionary chain. I'm not saying that I can't prove that tetrapods evolved from fish. I'm saying that this is another reason why I don't believe in neo-Darwinism by itself. I like my chaos paradigm that says that neo-Darwinism is possible but unlikely in a sea of possibilities.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : html
Edited by traderdrew, : Trying to find common ground with the administration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 6:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 11:52 PM traderdrew has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024