|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Trev777 writes: The walkingstick insects are still a "kind " no matter what their diversification. So is that what a "kind" is, an order. Are we evos finally getting a straight answer from a creo? if it is then dogs & cats are the same kind, and humans and lemurs are the same kind. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Thanks for the detailed analysis, you cannot conclude my evidence as all wrong, as you are biased from an evolutionary viewpoint just as I am biased from a Creationist viewpoint. This would be valid had you been discussing theology, but you're discussing science, and your "evidence" is simply your take on the evidence, and not the consensus amoungst scientist. There is no "bias" in which scientist take a creationst stand point versus an evolutionary stand point. There is simply evidence, collected by scientist, studied by scientist and given to us to learn from. There are no a priori beliefs in science, there is just "follow the evidence where it takes you". However, first you must be educated enough in the specifc fields to be able to "follow the evidence". If not you wind up with, well, this following quote from you...
The walkingstick insects are still a "kind " no matter what their diversification. And what "kind" would that be, specifically? Arthropoda?Insecta? Pterygota? Neoptera? Exopterygota? Phasmatodea? Please be specific so we can know where you "draw the line" at "kind".
The problem of the incredible complexity of some creatures on the lower branches of the evolutionary tree of life vanishes if you abandon the assumption that they evolved. Yes, and Chris Angel would actually have talent if you believe magic is real. Not the point. You're asking for an abandonment of an observed phenomenon, plus a rejection of mountains of experimental data, just to satisfy your incredulous position. This is simply not going to happen. A couple of quote mines don't prove anything. RAZD has given you an enormous amount of information for you to simply ignore his points and continue to drive with yours. In the spirit of good debating at least try to counter his points. Or simply admit that you are way out of your realm. - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Trev - I can see you carry on the grand old creo tradition of quote mining. The New Scientist article you quote from (here: Page not found | Australian Academy of Science) simply isn't saying what I think you are trying to imply.
When the author says "rethink the process of evolution" they mean incorporating a modern understanding of homologies and convergent traits (through molecular research) into phylogeny. They are not saying the theory of common descent is in error or is being questioned. Personally I had some issues with the article, I think the writer somewhat overstated the issues that are being raised. This is all to common in pop-science writing. Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Trev777
... you cannot conclude my evidence as all wrong,... I have not seen any evidence that you are right, in fact I have not seen any evidence at all from you: all you have presented so far is assertion, which is opinion, which is worthless as any kind of evidence, no matter how you try to redefine the word. Curiously, I can not only conclude that your assertions are wrong, the walkingsticks PROVE that your opinion is wrong, and it has nothing to do with bias, but logic and fact. This also means that your bias is also irrelevant: bias cannot change fact into fiction.
The walkingstick insects are still a "kind " no matter what their diversification. Nice try, but your assertion was that mutations always result in a loss of information ... here's what you said:
Trev777, msg=102 writes: Genetic mutations can involve a single nucleotide or displacement of a whole gene within a chromosome. Since they are a change in a highly complex system, each involves a loss of information. And there is not a word about "kinds" - not anywhere in your post. Your assertion of each mutation involving a loss of information is invalid (or irrelevant, depending on what you mean by "information"). The +wing mutation, then the -wing mutation, then the +wing mutation means that if one = loss of information, then the other = gain of information. x+1<>x-1 unless x=0 ("x" meaning "information" and x=0 meaning it is irrelevant to evolution, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation). Curiously, your assertion just before that now falsified one, is also falsified by the same evidence:
Trev777, msg=102 writes: The formation of a wing would involve a hugh amount of genetic information, and the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible. Seeing as it appears to be pretty easy to change from wing to no-wing to wing versions, the conclusion of a "hugh amount of genetic information," is also untenable. Instead of admitting (again) that you are wrong (again), you have tried to pretend that you are talking about something else. This is dishonest. It is also known as the creationist game of "moving the goal-posts" -- trying to change the topic everytime your opinion is demonstrated to be false or ridiculous (like the population mathematics). Do you learn from mistakes? Or do you think that faith makes you impervious to mistakes?
... as you are biased from an evolutionary viewpoint just as I am biased from a Creationist viewpoint. What you fail to see is that it is possible to be unbiased, but to use the evidence to understand what reality says is true. Multiple pieces of evidence from multiple venues demonstrates over and over that if "information" (whatever you mean by it) is lost by one mutation, that "information" (by the same meaning, whatever it is) is gained by other mutations. This is not my opinion, which can be biased, it is what objective evidence of reality says - and evidence cannot be biased.
The problem of the incredible complexity of some creatures on the lower branches of the evolutionary tree of life vanishes if you abandon the assumption that they evolved. It also vanishes if you abandon the argument from incredulity and look at the evidence.
New Scientist(June2007) says - "Recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. Did you notice that they don't say anywhere in the article that evolution was not involved? Have you read the article? What do you think it says?
New Scientist ArticleCopy of full article quote: I love newsy articles trying to be scientific. Did you notice that they contradict themselves? That's what happens when hyperbole gets out of hand. "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex,..." VS "The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair." What you see is the disproof of a straw man -- evolution has never claimed to be only a gradualist tree. Now we add quote mining to the list of logical fallacies you have employed -- and ANOTHER attempt to move the discussion away from your failure to talk about transitional fossils. Did you notice that the article STILL talks about transitions from early forms of animals to later forms of animals, and that totally absent from the discussion is any mention of anything like a saltation of new species. Do you really think this article makes a difference? Does it disprove evolution? Does it invalidate the concept of transitional species? If not then what purpose is served by listing it?
Concerning chimps and vocalisation, evolution suggests our language evolved from gestures not vocalisation. Babies use gestures before they learn words. But a baby's throat is designed so that speech is only possible once danger of choking over food is past. Then the larynx drops to a suitable position for speech. This drop dosen't happen with primates. Curiously, what this simple fact demonstrates is the retention of ancestral traits during developmental stages of growth in humans, and it is very strong evidence of common ancestry with primates: we start with a primate larynx, not a vocalizing one. If human ancestors had not inherited the larynx of primates, by being primates, but from a totally independent lineage that is vocal, this retention to avoid choking should not be necessary.
I'm at the OK corrall, and my cap pistol - but Ive got Clint Eastwood with me! 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Trev777,
This is going to be difficult to explain in a way that you will find reasonable, but the short of it is that that New Scientist article (Evolution: hacking back the tree of life) is just plain way over the top in what it says about complexity trends, specifically:
New Scientist writes: Yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt. Increasing complexity has never been a rule within evolutionary biology. I have no idea why the article's author, Laura Spinney, would say such or thing, or why the editors let it through. There may be contexts in which increasing complexity is expected, but she doesn't qualify what she says in any way, and so in the way that she states it she is just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of diminishing complexity, and Spinney even mentions some, like the lost legs of snakes and whales. The example I usually use is cave fish who have lost their eyes, and there are many other examples. In fact, there are so many examples of diminishing complexity that no one familiar with evolution would ever make the mistake of claiming that increasing complexity is a rule. Early in the article Spinney quotes Detlev Arendt:
Devlev Arendt writes: "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong." Maybe this is what led Spinney astray. Not having access to the whole conversation it is difficult to tell why Arendt would have phrased things in this way, but as others have already said, the article is actually about something we've known about for a long time, that the tree of life as originally constructed based upon outer appearance often has to be revised in light of genetic information. The hippo being more closely related to whales instead of pigs was one example in the article. The significant new information that is the reason for the article is that some of the genetics-driven revisions to the tree of life are turning out to be surprisingly larger than originally expected. There's only one overriding rule in evolutionary biology, and it's the same one as in the annual NCAA basketball tournament, with which you're probably unfortunately as unfamiliar as I am with Premier League soccer, but the rule is, "Survive and advance." If survival requires getting simpler then that's what will happen, the only other alternative being diminishing populations and eventual extinction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
spradling100164 Junior Member (Idle past 5448 days) Posts: 4 From: Pensacola Joined: |
http
Edited by spradling100164, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
spradling100164 Junior Member (Idle past 5448 days) Posts: 4 From: Pensacola Joined: |
wow this sure makes me feel great "The missing link" hey gandpa,
Fossil Ida: Extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution | Fossil Ida | The Guardian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi spradling100164, and welcome to the fray.
wow this sure makes me feel great "The missing link" hey gandpa, Woot! Now all we need to do is get some of that fossil bone to Schweitzer's lab to see if they can find some primate soft tissue ... and see whether this can confirm the primate vs lemur question? Dinosaur Shocker | Science|
Smithsonian Magazine
Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years? - 47 million should be a snap eh? Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3022 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Woot! Now all we need to do is get some of that fossil bone to Schweitzer's lab to see if they can find some primate soft tissue ... and see whether this can confirm the primate vs lemur question?
Three points: 1) I'm not sure why getting "primate soft tissue" would answer any questions about relationships. It would be unlikely that any DNA could be found. As far as I know, the morphology is enough to call this fossil a primate. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by "the primate vs lemur question." Lemurs are primates. Again, as far as I know, this fossil is what is expected as a species very close to the point at which the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage separated from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. The age is correct, as is the location. 3) I don't quite grasp your implication that the recovery of soft tissue from the interior of this fossil might be possible, as it was possible from a massive dinosaur bone. The thickness of the fossil rock around the dinosaur soft tissue far exceeds the entire thickness of any bone of the fossil in question. I suspect that recovery of soft tissue would not be possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thanks for the detailed analysis, you cannot conclude my evidence as all wrong, as you are biased from an evolutionary viewpoint just as I am biased from a Creationist viewpoint. There is an old proverb to the effect that the thief thinks that everyone steals. The fact that you know that you are biased does not mean that everyone else is.
The problem of the incredible complexity of some creatures on the lower branches of the evolutionary tree of life vanishes if you abandon the assumption that they evolved. The problem is, in fact, solved by pointing out that they evolved. It is not solved by attributing it to magic.
The entire tree of life has been built on the assumption that evolution entails increasing complexity. What utter nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi pandion
3) I don't quite grasp your implication that the recovery of soft tissue from the interior of this fossil might be possible, as it was possible from a massive dinosaur bone. The thickness of the fossil rock around the dinosaur soft tissue far exceeds the entire thickness of any bone of the fossil in question. I suspect that recovery of soft tissue would not be possible. They have fur, so the degree of preservation is high, that's why I'm positing possible soft tissues available for further analysis.
It would be unlikely that any DNA could be found. As far as I know, the morphology is enough to call this fossil a primate. While DNA may not be possible, the existence of certain types of proteins could help define lineages
... is expected as a species very close to the point at which ... Which may be confirmed by finding proteins common to both but not common between - hence transitional. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
[qs]They have fur, so the degree of preservation is high, that's why I'm positing possible soft tissues available for further analysis.['qs]
I don't think that his follows. The preservation of the shape of the fur and such is a different kind of preservation than that of proteins inside a bone. Very fine grained sediment can preserve evidence of fur but it does not necessarily do anything to support chemical preservation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3022 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I think that you misunderstand. The fur was not preserved, only the impressions of the fur in the sediment.
They have fur, so the degree of preservation is high, that's why I'm positing possible soft tissues available for further analysis.While DNA may not be possible, the existence of certain types of proteins could help define lineages.
But there don't seem to be any proteins recoverable for the reasons that I mentioned before. Even in the famous case of the soft tissue recovered from a T. rex, there was no protein recovered, only some short sequences of amino acids.
Which may be confirmed by finding proteins common to both but not common between - hence transitional.
Since it is unlikely that any proteins will ever be found in this fossil, we'll just have to depend on the morphology to conclude that it is a transitional very near the split of the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. It shows traits of each lineage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
This post is a reply for Alan Clarke's Message 97, on the thread "Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity," where it is off-topic. Since this thread's original discussion has run its course, I propose that, if Alan wishes to continue his discussion about transitional fossils, he be allowed to do so here.
Alan presented the following image as evidence that coelacanths and tetrapods are not related. Aside from the fact that he is attacking a 71-year-old argument (by his own admission) that is not considered valid by anybody he's trying to convince (again, by his own acknowledgement); Alan is also apparently only privy to partial evidence. He presented this image:
I would like his opinion on this image:
Note that Tiktaalik's limb fits nicely between the limb of a lobe-finned fish and the limb of a tetrapod. Also note that Tiktaalik's arm bones are attached to the ribcage (by means of a shoulder blade, no less), as are the arm bones of its predecessor, Panderichthys (whose shoulder blades are smaller and thinner than Tiktaalik's). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
That was kind-of the point ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024