Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
42 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,870 Year: 16,906/19,786 Month: 1,031/2,598 Week: 277/251 Day: 5/43 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 166 of 210 (530896)
10-15-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
10-15-2009 5:54 AM


Re: hi again arphy!
Thanks for the link, Percy.

Here's a link to an update of that infamous speech.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm

Basically, the many transcripts floating around are often incorrect and, most importantly, were created by and for creationists.

As such, unauthorized at the very least, they should be held suspect.

Secondly, Patterson himself is upset at how his speech had been portrayed (quite rightly, you point out that at first glance the transcript you have seems to have him spouting off anti-evolution nonsense).

The thing is - and I *did* read it the whole way through - I believe he really isn't talking about the reality or truth of evolution or creation, but how you should treat the data to get at what is "true".

He is presenting the issue - which is a contentious one, echoed in his deliberately contentious speech - as a question of how we know the patterns that we see are "real" or "true".

I think it really was a speech designed for systematics specialists and was designed to cause a reaction.

I believe what has happened has been that every crank and creationist has taken what they perceive at face value and presented it as something that the speaker himself denies he meant.

Whether he was lying in his response or whether he really was harbouring "anti-evolutionist" theories is something that each side of this argument can vehemently disagree on...

I happen to believe what I perceive is the simplest answer that he was telling the truth in later letters specifically about a speech that was taped and transcribed without his knowledge or authorization. As such, I think that whilst he appears to be spouting anti-evolutionist gibberish, it is because he wasn't expecting to be taken out of the (admittedly complex) context he was speaking in and to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:54 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:06 PM greyseal has responded
 Message 169 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 2:00 AM greyseal has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 167 of 210 (530972)
10-15-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by greyseal
10-15-2009 12:58 PM


Re: hi again arphy!
I read your link, and Patterson actually defends his most extreme view, expressed rhetorically as, "Is there anything you know about evolution that is true?" What an incredibly hostile question! Combined with his assertion that "Evolution shouldn't be taught in high school," I just don't think there's anything Patterson could say to dissuade me from believing that he has major problems with evolution, not at some detailed, obscure, scholarly level concerning systematics (most of Darwin's evidence was systematics, i.e., the distribution of then current biodiversity), but at a basic level. I mean, my God, he doesn't think one of the most important theories of all time should be taught in high school!!!

Too short and too shrill, but I should have left 5 minutes ago, gotta go.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by greyseal, posted 10-15-2009 12:58 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by greyseal, posted 10-16-2009 9:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 168 of 210 (531059)
10-15-2009 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Arphy
10-13-2009 6:13 AM


Hi, Arphy.

Arphy writes:

Also came across this in an article which which i think is an interesting point made in relation to the Tiktaalik prediction.

EarthHistory.org.uk writes:

Consequently, evolution theory predicted that the emergence of hindlimb-powered propulsion would be seen in the interval between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. Tiktaalik fails that prediction. Indeed, it was more of a ‘front-wheel drive’ animal than Panderichthys was.

This isn't really a quote-mine, but it's kind of related, and it really pisses me off, so I'm going to talk about it anyway.

Did you even think to check this claim, or did you just see it and take it at face value because you like what it says?

The pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik roseae is not known. Thus, there is no possible way for whoever-this-is to make the claim that Tiktaalik was "more of a front-wheel drive animal" than Panderichthys was, unless they are using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."

Please try to be as skeptical of claims that agree with you as you are of claims that disagree with you: just because it sounds good to you doesn't mean it is reliable or accurate.

This is something that drives me crazy, and I run into it all the time with religious folks. Being raised on the scriptures makes people terribly prone to fixation on and infatuation with trite phrases and truisms, and there is a tendency there to treat every phrase like it's a quote from Proverbs.

We're taught that "truth speaks to our souls" (maybe not in those exact words, though), and so, whatever "feels right" to us should be wholeheartedly accepted. That makes us so apt to take things out of context or to simply halt our search when we hear what we want to hear, rather than when we hear rational, reasonable conclusions. It is the single most infuriating thing in my personal life and experience, and I have no end of regrets because of it.

There, that's my two cents. Sorry, Arphy: it isn't really aimed at you, but at a specific pet peeve of mine. I hope you don't take it too personally.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Arphy, posted 10-13-2009 6:13 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 2:42 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2692 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 169 of 210 (531072)
10-16-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by greyseal
10-15-2009 12:58 PM


Re: hi again arphy!
First have to say a big thanks to percy, his replies have been very good.

One thing to note is that you (greyseal) seem intent on portraying patterson as a man who believes exactly the same things about evolution as you do. This is just not true. Not all evolutionists believe everything equally. And yes, I think it is safe to say that even evolutionists have doubts sometimes. To try to make patterson fit into a nice wee box of what an evolutionist should believe, is just wrong.

About the transcript:
Firstly, nobody knows if it was a creationist who taped the unauthorized version (which contains some errors and is missing the entire discussion section) or not, that is just conjecture. But yes, the speech wasn't exactly "evolution friendly".
The copy of the transcript I have at home was taped by Wayne Friar who had his microphone set up in plain view in the front row. This transcript and audio also contains the discusson section at the end. btw i got the link to the ARN website which distributes the full transcript from the CMI website.

I believe what has happened has been that every crank and creationist has taken what they perceive at face value and presented it as something that the speaker himself denies he meant.

Rubbish, especially when you listen to the audio. In the discussion section it is especially noticeable that he had wound up some of the other evolutionists present. And what do you mean he might have been lying. You really think he did a whole speech full of lies that he did not believe in himself, just to wind up the other evolutionists present. Sorry, now your excuses are becoming a bit too incredible.
Not only that, even in the link to ARN that you provide you seem to have only read the part about the unauthorized transcripts without noticing that the rest of the article is not a glowing endorsement for evolution.

His later comments fit in well with what he was saying in his speech. again Please stop trying to fit patterson into the box that you want him to fit into.

Sorry, this has been a bit of a rant, I was hoping that what percy was saying would be enough but you just seem to want to keep on going.

Thanks,

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by greyseal, posted 10-15-2009 12:58 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by greyseal, posted 10-16-2009 10:05 AM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2692 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 170 of 210 (531077)
10-16-2009 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Blue Jay
10-15-2009 11:49 PM


Hi bluejay

Yip i did realise that and maybe I didn't qualify the quote as well as i should have. Maybe I should have added that while tiktaalik may not fail the prediction it certainly doesn't fulfill the prediction. Once a complete skeleton of Tiktaalik is found this could bring some surprising results. What would happen if it didn't have a hint of any kind of transitional hind legs? What did the tail look like? This is a different point but, why is Tiktaalik trumpeted as a transitional fossil when any day the complete fossil could turn up and possibly show something completly different from what was expected?

But yeah, i basically agree with the rest of your post, I was a bit hasty.

although now I come to think of it. At least comparatively Tiktaalik might be more "front-wheel drive" than Pandericthys. Depends also if the assertion "Indeed, it was more of a ‘front-wheel drive’ animal than Panderichthys was." is based on comparing the two front fins or on comparing hind fins with no(?) hind fins. The article doesn't say, which isn't particularly helpful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Blue Jay, posted 10-15-2009 11:49 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 171 of 210 (531147)
10-16-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
10-15-2009 5:06 PM


Patterson
read your link, and Patterson actually defends his most extreme view, expressed rhetorically as, "Is there anything you know about evolution that is true?" What an incredibly hostile question! Combined with his assertion that "Evolution shouldn't be taught in high school," I just don't think there's anything Patterson could say to dissuade me from believing that he has major problems with evolution

You're certainly welcome to your views and quite frankly I agree with you that what he said - both at first AND second glance - is very easy to read as hostile to evolution.

The issue I have with creationists quoting him is that he is apparently adamant in later letters specifically about that talk that this apparent view isn't what he meant and specifically that he was taken out of context.

Unfortunately he's dead, so further elaboration is impossible, and we're left with quite a question - was he a rabid anti-evolutionist and just caught out agreeing with the creationists or was he a staunch evolutionist who was caught out being provocative?

You either assume he's lying later on when he recants the creationist views or that he was stupid, deliberately provocative, or both.

Either way, he's not such a good source for creationists to count as gospel - and obviously not such a good source to count for evolutionists either. I'd prefer he was left out of the discussion - the only reason he gets brought up is because certain creaionists (yes, I'm looking at you Arphy) have a blind spot when it comes to dissenting viewpoints from the man himself about his own words (cryptic and inflamatory as they were!).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-15-2009 5:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 172 of 210 (531149)
10-16-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Arphy
10-16-2009 2:00 AM


Re: hi again arphy! (last words from me on Patterson)
Hi Arphy.

I don't mind the rant, though you should best be reading what I wrote to Percy too since it is pertinent and I won't repeat what is there, here verbatim.

One thing to note is that you (greyseal) seem intent on portraying patterson as a man who believes exactly the same things about evolution as you do.

well with respect, either the man agrees with the theory of evolution or he doesn't. I could change that paragraph and use words like "creation" and "creationism" and turn it back on yourself and be just as correct.

This is just not true.

Much as I could just drop the point, how do you know that? - and this (and the reply to Percy) will be my last word on my opinion.

Firstly, nobody knows if it was a creationist who taped the unauthorized version

judging by the title of the speech (given to him) and the fact it was unauthorized, it sounds plausible - but yes, hard to tell. His speech IS being touted on creationist websites, but that's hardly surprising given the content.

I believe what has happened has been that every crank and creationist has taken what they perceive at face value and presented it as something that the speaker himself denies he meant.

Rubbish, especially when you listen to the audio. In the discussion section it is especially noticeable that he had wound up some of the other evolutionists present. And what do you mean he might have been lying. You really think he did a whole speech full of lies that he did not believe in himself, just to wind up the other evolutionists present. Sorry, now your excuses are becoming a bit too incredible.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Patterson himself says:

quote:
Fired up by Mayr's paper, I gave a fairly radical talk in New York, comparing the effect of evolutionary theory on systematics with Gillespie's (1979, p. 8) characterization of pre-Darwinian creationism: 'not a research govering theory (since its power to explain was only verbal) but an antitheory, a void that had the function of knowledge but, as naturalists increasingly came to feel, conveyed none.' Unfortunately, and unknown to me, there was a creationist in my audience with a hidden tape recorder. A transcript of my talk was produced and circulated among creationists, and the talk has since been widely, and often inaccurately, quoted in creationist literature

So, to recapitulate:

* Patterson himself calls his speech "radical" - I believe from context he means it to be provocative and thought-provoking, argumentative.
* Patterson himself says there was a creationist who unknowingly to him had a tape recorder and produced the "unauthorized" version
* Patterson himself says that he is "inaccurately quoted"

So, my viewpoint comes specifically from the man himself. You may find Patterson's own explanation of his words trite, false, unlikely or, indeed, "incredible" - but they are his words. Not mine.

I merely think that an authorized quote from the man himself about the viewpoint in his OWN speech is more likely to be representative of his own views than a speech which the man himself calls "unauthorized" and "inaccurate".

Take it up with Patterson if you disagree with my opinion of Patterson's own personal viewpoint.

I haven't heard his later comments, I don't have the "missing pieces", and I admit entirely that my view is mutable by listening to Patterson himself talk.

As to the "lying" I am speaking of whether his adamant denial of being a creationist later on is truth of lie - and that is something highly debatable based on his own words in both the speech and the recapitulation.

Cheers,

Greyseal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 2:00 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 5:49 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2692 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 173 of 210 (531263)
10-16-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by greyseal
10-16-2009 10:05 AM


Re: hi again arphy! (last words from me on Patterson)
I know you want this to be the last thing on patterson however:

* Patterson himself calls his speech "radical" - I believe from context he means it to be provocative and thought-provoking, argumentative.
Yes, but does this mean that he doesn't believe his own arguments? It certainly sounded like it on the audio, and especially when confronted by the other people at the presentation discussion time.

* Patterson himself says there was a creationist who unknowingly to him had a tape recorder and produced the "unauthorized" version
How does patterson know it was a creationist if it was recorded "unknowingly". Remember that I do have the recording that was recorded in full view of patterson and is the "official" recording, so why bring this up again. My quotes were from the authoritative version.

* Patterson himself says that he is "inaccurately quoted"
Sure he may have been, but have i commited that here? I even went to the trouble of buying a copy of the audio and transcript to check it out fully.

Your whole contention is based on this one sentence

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
in a letter to Mr Theunissen. Yes, Mr Theunissen's interpretation may be correct
What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.
however this doesn't mean that all the creationist interpretations are wrong, some may have been, some might not have been. I really don't see how adding this
"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
in any way creates a postive endorsement for evolution. This sentence fits in very well with his presentation. There he basically says that the general evolutionary theory (common descent of all organisms) should not be used in systematics. in other words we shouldn't be making up "stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection", but rather to take a "creationist" approach (yes, i know, sounds crazy, but hey that's what he said) to systematics.
This doesn't question whether or not patterson believes that the general theory of evolution is true, or that there are what may seem like transitional forms (i.e. they have features that are usually associated with a completly different group of organisms e.g. Archaeopteryx).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by greyseal, posted 10-16-2009 10:05 AM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 10-17-2009 5:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 174 of 210 (531336)
10-17-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Arphy
10-16-2009 5:49 PM


Re: hi again arphy! (last words from me on Patterson)
I don't know why evolutionists are putting up such a fuss about Patterson. He made some very strong statements against evolution, and he apparently meant them. Whatever was really going on in Patterson's head is anyone's guess, including him it appears, but creationists cannot be criticized for construing Patterson's speech very negatively concerning evolution. Evolutionists can argue the context and the motivation and whatever else all they like, but that those undeniably very negative comments were made is undeniable and unambiguous.

But this thread isn't about oddball evolutionists like Patterson and, to a much lesser degree, Feduccia. It's about creationist quote mines, like making it seem that Stephen Jay Gould has a problem with evolution, or that Futuyma doesn't think the fossil record supports evolution.

So using Futuyma, here's an excellent example of a creationist quote mine. I'm taking this from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html. First, here's the creationist quote mine:

Futuyma writes:

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

What was Futuyma actually saying? Here's the previous paragraph:

Previously, Futuyma writes:

"Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids."

And here are the sentences following the quote mine:

Subsequently, Futuyma writes:

"But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

Futuyma was actually saying the opposite of that first quote. That's what makes it a quote mine. And quote mines are what this thread is about.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Arphy, posted 10-16-2009 5:49 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 175 of 210 (531339)
10-17-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Arphy
10-13-2009 6:13 AM


Hi Arphy. Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been busy. Before I get down to business, I would like to echo the praise that has been heaped on this post. Well done. Your material stands in stark contrast to the tactics of certain other creationist members recent contributions.

Patterson; Okay, I have to give you this one. Clearly Patterson made some extreme anti-evolution statements. If he thinks he is being unfairly misrepresented, he is deluding himself.

Of course, I have to add that I think Patterson has lost the plot here. I can't agree with his statements. He seems to be talking... out of an unconventional orifice shall we say. His comments are completely contradictory. All I can say is that one man's opinion isn't going to be considered a show stopper; the consensus of biologists is still behind evolution.

One basic example might be that the common theory says that birds evolved from reptiles, but this is because certain features are picked. If we picked as a major feature warm-bloodedness as a feature the evolutionary tree would look quite different with birds evolving from mammals.

Huh? That is a total non-sequitur. No-one would think any such thing. The whole point about attempts to determine ancestry is that they use all available data. There is no reason to concentrate only on one aspect.

Also teeth was an important feature of Archaeopteryx but firstly they were not reptilian teeth

Huh? (again). I don't suppose you'd care to back that up would you? It sounds like nonsense to me.

And then we have another bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus initially dated at the same age as Archaeopteryx, yet it is clearly a bird and has beak as most birds have today. So what do we do? Do we shift Archaeopteryx foward,or sanctus back?

God no! There's no need. Please pay attention to what Caffiene said about transitionals. Just because there are other, more derived birds around at the same time as Archy, doesn't mean that it is not a transitional. It combines bird and reptile features. That alone makes it a transitional fossil.

Also, have we found any intermediate features? by that i mean, most of these transitional features seem to be fully formed and functional and not half way (i.e. halfway between reptile skin and feathers, halfway between teeth and no teeth, etc.)

That isn't how it works. All forms are "fully functional". There are fossils though, which display features halfway between two forms, such as Tiktaalik. Nonetheless, it is still fully functional.

Also another thought on feduccia on birds, while i recognise that feduccia thinks that Archaeopteryx has some morphological features so that it can be placed into a reptile-bird lineage (note again depending on which features are highlighted different evolutionary paths are theorised), it is such that it is clearly a bird and in classification should not be placed under reptiles.

From an evolutionary point of view this is a non-point. Call it a reptile if you like. Call it a bird if you prefer. It does not change the fact that Archy is a clear combination of bird and reptile features.

Granny writes:

And yet, morphological classifications agree very closely with genetic similarities. Genetic similarities do suggest relatedness. Or should we abandon genetically based paternity tests?

Arphy writes:

See above quotes from Patterson.

As has been noted above, there is nothing in the Patterson material that addresses my point about genetics. There is broad agreement between morphological and genetic hierarchies. Patterson's claim about myoglobins is one I have not heard before and can't really comment on, beyond the fact that I doubt it is true. Perhaps you might like to look into it further.

They {nested hierarchies} are also generally in accord with the Creation model.

Only because the "creation model" doesn't exist beyond a few vague and non-committal musings. Anything would be compatible.

Syngameon: Yeah, that definition is also good. species like a zebra and a horse won't interbreed usually, but it does sometimes happen if the circumstances are right. Is this not natural? hmmm.... experiments don't count only observed events of syngameonity in the organisms natural environment count?

If you accept that definition, you are screwed. Most animals do not interbreed. You are left with a syngameon that is most often going to contain only one species. That leaves the ark a little bit over full.

As for invertebrates, OK. Have it your way; there were no invertebrates on the ark. Congratulations. You have just proved the ark story to be false.

There are countless of species of invertebrate. None of them could have survived a global flood. The usual creationist nonsense about vegetation mats is pure fantasy. There is no way that all the world's invertebrates could have survived in this way for a year. Either way the invertebrates destroy any ark theory. If on board, they would overwhelm the ship. If not, they would all die off.

To say that lobe-finned fish have the beginings of tetrapod legs seems ridiculous, because in living lobe-finned fish these features are highly adapted to a deft swimming action.

It isn't just about that. Tiktaalik was very much a free swimming animal, but that isn't the point. The point is that its fins show morphological similarities with vertebrate limbs, with recognisable bones moved into a more vertebrate-like position. Also its head is unmistakably vertebrate. If you want to insist that the fins are fish-like and no more, fine. But it still leaves you to explain what a fish is doing with a tetrapod's skull.

There is a great article on tetrapod evolution here, I urge you to take a look.

To continue this discussion, perhaps you might like to head over to Evolution of Air-breathing Tetrapods, where it will be on topic.

umm... I'm sure I gave some examples of rapid speciation. Have a look at some previous posts.

I don't recall that. You are not going to find any examples. I don't think you appreciate how extreme the evolution you are proposing really is. An entire ecosystem as unique as NZ's? In just four thousand years? That is science fiction.

The point is that a kind can not be pinned down to any man-made classification. A kind does not = family or order or genus. A kind may be at any of those levels depending on the organism and the way it was classified.

I'm sorry, but that is simply rubbish. If "kind" is a meaningful term, it must be defined clearly. If it real and objective, there is no reason why you could not define it. If you can't define it, it has no value as a descriptive term.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Arphy, posted 10-13-2009 6:13 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2692 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 176 of 210 (532562)
10-24-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Granny Magda
10-17-2009 5:59 AM


Hi Magda! Thanks for your comments.

Huh? That is a total non-sequitur. No-one would think any such thing. The whole point about attempts to determine ancestry is that they use all available data. There is no reason to concentrate only on one aspect.

ok, a bit of an extreme example. But i still question whether ancestery is really determined by using all the avaliable data. Allow me to combine the above with your comment
There is broad agreement between morphological and genetic hierarchies.
Do these two different data sets really paint the same picture? Is one more reliable than the other? This is an interesting subject and I will hopefully open a thread about this soon.

I don't suppose you'd care to back that up would you? It sounds like nonsense to me.


http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119%5B1187:BADSAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Please pay attention to what Caffiene said about transitionals. Just because there are other, more derived birds around at the same time as Archy, doesn't mean that it is not a transitional

Sure you can use this argument to try and harmonise evidence with the evolutionary view but it is not direct evidence for evolution.
Anyway even this does not work in this case, so the researchers reassigned the Jehol Group (rock where fossils were found) from the jurassic to the early Cretaceous because of the birds present. i.e. this was not done because there was any evidence placing it there but rather because it did not fit the evolutionary story and therefore had to be changed.

That isn't how it works. All forms are "fully functional". There are fossils though, which display features halfway between two forms, such as Tiktaalik. Nonetheless, it is still fully functional.
ok, so Why, according to evolution are there no 'halfway features' that are "on their way" to becoming functional?

with recognisable bones moved into a more vertebrate-like position.
Really? With some serious imagination maybe. This part of an article about pandericthys shows the large gap that still exists between Tiktaalik and tetrapod limbs.
The small distal bones found between Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are nothing in comparison to the changes that need to be made between either of them and a limb, as one of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Per Ahlberg, has admitted before:

‘Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.’7
They do not claim that the digits themselves in Panderichthys are any more advanced than Tiktaalik; but they do claim that some of the features of the so-called ‘wrist’ and the positioning of the digits are more tetrapod-like. However, they also acknowledge that Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are close in pectoral fin morphology, exhibiting largely the same bones in comparable proportions. The problem is that neither of them are anything like a tetrapod limb because the wrist morphology is all wrong.8

As Luskin points out, there are a number of things that need to radically change from Tiktaalik to get a proper tetrapod wrist/hand:

1.‘Shrink Tiktaalik’s [and Panderichthys’] radius and reposition it so that it articulates other bones further down the limb.
2.‘Evolve a radiale [a third bone alongside the ulnare and intermedium that articulates with the radius].
3.‘Dramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out to form digits.
4.‘Evolve metacarpals and phalanges so that there are real digits extending distally from the radius.
5.‘Evolve the ‘lotsa blobs’, i.e. evolve other carpal bones between the radius, ulna, and the now-aligned digits to form a real wrist. In other words, evolve the bulk of the wrist-bones.’8
Another important consideration is function. Since these particular fins have never been seen in live operation, there is no reason to suggest that they provide evidence for fish–tetrapod evolution. Coelacanth is a prime example. Before it was known that its limbs were used for deft manoeuvring of the fin, the coelacanth’s limbs were thought to be evidence of the fish–tetrapod transition. Now we know better.9 The situation is no different in Panderichthys.

http://creation.com/panderichthys-a-fish-with-fingers

I don't recall that. You are not going to find any examples

Hence why i said look at previous posts. Here is one such example, look back at my previous posts for more.
Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwins—whereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins.
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

For more on kinds and hybrids see Thread What is a "kind"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 10-17-2009 5:59 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Granny Magda, posted 10-24-2009 6:23 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 178 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 6:32 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 10-24-2009 8:37 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2009 10:54 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 1:53 PM Arphy has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 177 of 210 (532568)
10-24-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Hi Arphy,

I don't really think there is much left to say in this thread. You have pretty much backed away from the Feduccia quote and I have accepted that Patterson has made anti-evolution comments. There is nothing on-topic left.

However, I have to reply to your citation about Archaeopteryx teeth. Your source is very interesting and one could use it to argue that Archy was not descended from theropods, but that isn't what you said, now is it?

Arphy writes:

Also teeth was an important feature of Archaeopteryx but firstly they were not reptilian teeth

Your source (the link no longer works BTW) categorically does not state that Archaeopteryx's teeth were not like those of reptiles.

It is to be expected that there should be changes in dentition. The creature is a toothed bird. Whatever its ancestry, it is going to have undergone some serious changes.

ok, so Why, according to evolution are there no 'halfway features' that are "on their way" to becoming functional?

Because natural selection can't select for something that may be useful in another million years. It can only work with what it has to hand. Each stage must be functional, at least at the level of gross morphology.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:06 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 178 of 210 (532569)
10-24-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Fedducia remains not a credible source
Arphy writes:


http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119%5B1187:BADSAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Ah.... Fedducia. Why am I not surprised? I refer you to Richard Prum's response (Are Current Critiques of the Theropod Origin of Birds Science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002) Richard O. Prum The Auk, Vol. 120, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 550-56) and in particular to this:

quote:
Feduccia's (2002) entire discussions of teeth morphology and replacement, cranial morphology, wrist bone homologies (plus three figures and a table) are completely moot and irrelevant given his acceptance of pennaceous feathers on dromaeosaurs with those serrate teeth, patterns of tooth replacement, cranial morphology, and wrist bones.

In other words, Fedducia's table of comparison is based on the wrong theropods! We have already found teeth like those of Archaeopteryx in theropods and those teeth are found in the group closest to Archaeopteryx which also share other anatomical features with Archaeopteryx including feathers.

Edited by Mr Jack, : Removed errant carriage return.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 4:38 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 179 of 210 (532576)
10-24-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Arphy writes:

Anyway even this does not work in this case, so the researchers reassigned the Jehol Group (rock where fossils were found) from the jurassic to the early Cretaceous because of the birds present. i.e. this was not done because there was any evidence placing it there but rather because it did not fit the evolutionary story and therefore had to be changed.

You're getting your information from a website (http://creation.com) that is making up things whole and lying to you, for example:

Creation Ministries writes:

Instead of adjusting the hypotheses to fit the new discoveries, evidence has been forced to fit the prevailing paradigm, sometimes through misleading interpretations and occasionally through apparent fraud.

(http://creation.com/...mitarian-re-dating-of-the-jehol-group)

Holy fakery, Batman, fossil flimflam! There's no shortage of creationist websites out there willing and able to engage in mudslinging at wholly innocent scientific endeavors. As Feduccia himself says in the same Discover magazine interview that your Creation Ministries website references:

Feduccia writes:

Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is.

Whatever level you examine in the geologic record you'll find a fossil record of life that differs from life at lower and higher levels. The deeper you dig down through geologic layers the more different that life is from today. Piecing all that randomly and serendipitously preserved evidence from all the eras back together into a single consistent evolutionary narrative probably isn't possible. There's still disagreement about how many people shot JFK, so naturally there's disagreements and contradictions concerning the order of events millions of years ago. That's just reality.

But creationists have chosen the correct strategy of making up false criticisms of legitimate science, because focusing on the evidence for their own ideas only reveals that there isn't any. If current scientific theories about geologic and evolutionary history are incorrect, they at least have a great deal of evidence supporting them and cannot be replaced by cockamamie ideas for which there is no evidence at all.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:14 AM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 210 (532580)
10-24-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


ok, so Why, according to evolution are there no 'halfway features' that are "on their way" to becoming functional?

Natural selection only selects for things that are useful now, not for things that, with a bit more work, would be useful in the future.

C'mon, this is really basic stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019