|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Google scholar gets 104,000 hits for "foraminifera" and only 456 for "foraminifera ecophenotypic". It's worse than that: when you google ecophenotype foraminifera, and this thread on EvC is the second hit. The first hit is Helen Tappan's 1978 paper. ecophenotype foraminifera - Google Search Conclusion: your forum is one of the leading experts on ecophenotype foraminifera ... or it just is not that big an issue. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : link we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, Kaichos Man, let's see if we can clear some things up.
Do you understand that whether they are ecophenotypic varieties within a single known species, or actually a morphospecies with multiple cryptic species, that the classification is still a group of forams that have evolved as different genetic lineages from other foram species?
Yes I do. So classificiations of the forams at the genus level is valid regardless of whether we have ecophenotype variants or subspecies population variants. Consider this the fall back and punt position for the tree of life as determined by Parker and Arnold, and this should make the next point easier.
Do you understand that this does not affect the tree of life of common ancestry as determined by Parker and Arnold?
No I don't. The first branch in on the tree of life for any species is to their genus category, so if the genus classifications are all valid, then the arrangement from genus down to the first foram population would be valid. Note references in [brackets] below are to abstracts and quotes provided in Message 58. We may see some additional classification of species within morphospecies to account for the ("underestimated") genetic species diversity that is being discovered through genetic analysis: this adds branches to the tree of life (to incorporate the "cryptic genetic types" [Kucera and Darling, 2002]), with the morpospecies as a likely common ancestor (an example of why classical taxonomy gets messy compared to cladogenetic classification). We may see some additional subdivision of species into subspecies or variety classifications ("Uvigerina peregrina parva is most likely a subspecies of Uvigerina peregrina and not an ecophenotype" [Schnfeld, 2006]): these would be stable subpopulations with varietal traits fixed in their genes, but still be part of the biological species in question (like the varieties of asian greenish warblers or the varieties of peppered moths). We may see some confirmation of ecophenotypic variants within some species ("Field and laboratory evidence demonstrates that this paired ecophenotypy is caused by contrasting results of delayed reproductive maturation in minimum environments, versus accelerated maturation in optimum environments. Longer growth periods produce larger, thickly calcified tests; shorter growth periods produce smaller, thinly calcified tests." [Tappan, 1978]). Such variation may well be due to aspects of the water column ("Analysis of the planktonic foraminiferal species, Neogloboquadrina pachyderma and Globorotalia inflata, indicate that the test outlines of these species reflect various physical parameters of the water column." [Healy-Williams, 2007]). Note that my impression from reading all these articles is that the known ecophenotypic variation is relatively small and apparently more a matter of maturation than different development, of overall complexity rather than markedly different pattern/s in the tests, ie - variation between single chamber and multichamber, but not to different multichamber patterns. The proposed ecological causes are pressure, salinity and levels of nutrition are plausible for such changes. With the advent of genetic analysis, it is possible that some species will be reclassified from one genus to another, but this will not be due to their being ecophenotypes, it will be due to evidence of genetic heredity and cladistic analysis. It is highly unlikely, however, that any substantive change to current arrangement of the tree of life for planktonic (or benthic) foraminifera will be made, as the classification of the various genera has not (yet) been challenged by any new findings since Parker and Arnold's work. What we are likely to see is refinement of it through additional information.
Regarding Arnold and Palmer's evolutionary progression as real science is like regarding Hans Christian Anderson's work as a factual history of Denmark. And yet neither you nor any article yet found has shown how a single aspect of Parker and Arnold's morphological analysis is invalid, even at the species level. (Note - I kept wanting to type Palmer too, btw, so I reversed the order to make it easier to remember properly). enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
And yet neither you nor any article yet found has shown how a single aspect of Parker and Arnold's morphological analysis is invalid, even at the species level. You miss the point, RAZD. I am not putting forward an unbroken evolutionary progression. The onus is not on me to show it is invalid. It is on Parker and Arnold to prove that it is valid. And they can't. Let's take another look at Dr Michael Knappertsbusch's paper:
quote: I assume you don't have a problem with the good doctor. A little research will show you that a) he is a globally-recognised authority on Foraminifera, and b) he is an evolutionist. Now then what is he saying? 1) There is a "major difficulty" with foraminiferal taxonomy. 2) It is caused by "clinal morphological changes". Changes possible under the existing gene pool. No speciation required. 3) This is a problem because these changes can "Mimic evolutionary change". Now the doctor sees a solution to the problem:
quote: But unfortunately, it's of no use to Parker and Arnold:
quote: Just to reiterate, RAZD. Here we have an unimpeachable source stating (very recently) that there is a "major difficulty" with foraminiferal taxonomy that cannot be solved with regard to extinct species. The onus is on Parker and Arnold to solve this difficulty, though I suspect they may not bother. As more becomes known about intraspecific variability, the "extraordinary plasticity" in foraminifera they might choose to pursue other lines of research, and hope that people forget about a premature and increasingly embarrassing claim of an unbroken evolutionary progression. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
If you have any evidence at all (as opposed to making stuff up) supporting your claim that Arnold and Parker (not Palmer) mistook ecophenotypic diversity for species diversity, then please cite it now. As I have stated elsewhere, the onus is not on me to provide evidence. I am not claiming to have discovered an unbroken evolutionary progression. Dr Knapperstbusch has pointed out a serious difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy relating to clinal morphology. Recent molecular reseach by other eminent scientists illustrates the same difficulty:
quote: and this:
quote: Emphasis added in both quotes. The onus is on Parker and Arnold to show that the "clinal morphology" or "morphological plasticity" creating such difficulties in the classification of living foraminifera is not present within their supposed evolutionary progression. And this, as Knappertsbusch has pointed out, is not possible with extinct species. Edited by Kaichos Man, : emphasis "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Kaichos Man
You miss the point, RAZD. I am not putting forward an unbroken evolutionary progression. The onus is not on me to show it is invalid. It is on Parker and Arnold to prove that it is valid. No, sorry. If you think their conclusion is false you need to show evidence that invalidates it, not just wish that it is invalid. Science works by invalidation of false concepts, not by proofs. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand either logic or science.
Let's take another look at Dr Michael Knappertsbusch's paper:
quote: First off, I'll take this as a tacit admission that your first issue with ecophenotypic variation does not have the traction you need to disrupt Parker and Arnold's work, as now you are changing horses in typical creationist manner. Again, you did not provide a link to your reference, but I've found it anyway.
quote: Note (1) that all four of these varieties are within the genus Globorotalia and that all are direct descendants from the Globorotalia menardii species:
... so as noted in Message 62:
quote: So this still does not challenge the work of Parker and Arnold in any way. Note (2) that the variations noted are variations on a theme displayed during the development of the forams with minor variation in complexity:
"... Measurements were made of spire height (∂x), maximum diameter (∂y), the tangent angles of the upper and lower peripheral keels (Φ1, Φ2, respectively), the number of chambers in the final whorl, and the area of the silhouette in keel view. Four morphotypes alpha, beta, gamma, and delta were distinguished. ... " ... and as such show even less variation than I said (Message 62) may be expected:
quote: So nothing here challenges Parker and Arnold. The whole paper is available at this link, rather than just the abstract, so we can look at it in greater depth, rather than just extract a tid-bit or two that fits your confirmation bias and ill/uninformed opinion:
Let's take another look at Dr Michael Knappertsbusch's paper:
quote: Now let's read the preceding paragraph:
quote: One such study was the one by Parker and Arnold eh? We also saw reference in Message 58 to similar work done by Healy-Williams (2007). Note that this is a "powerful means of studying speciation in the geological past," and not one that is being criticized, discarded, or found wanting. Your three quotes come in the next paragraph:
quote: But it doesn't stop there: now let's look at what he says after your quoted tid-bit:
quote: In other words, this "major difficulty" can be overcome by three different methodologies. Let's see what his conclusions are:
quote: Again, the amount and type of variation exhibited by Globorotalia menardii and its descendants is much less than the differences between the diverse and wonderous forms of the different genera of forams. Here's a few pictures of these four forms: Compare those differences with the amount of difference shown in the Parker and Arnold sequence here:
Does that look like earth shattering morphological differences that challenge the classification of foraminifera on the basis of morphological analysis as done by Parker and Arnold? Looks like my comments in Message 62 still stand unchallenged:
quote: Indeed, this article is validation that what we are seeing is refinement through additional information that builds on the previous morphological studies rather than invalidate them. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : comparison added we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Kaichos Man,
I have many times requested that you provide links for your quotes, so from now on each time you post a quote without a link (or a reference if it's not on the web) I will suspend you for 24 hours. Because this is an objective criteria I will continue as a participant in the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Kaichos Man writes: If you have any evidence at all (as opposed to making stuff up) supporting your claim that Arnold and Parker (not Palmer) mistook ecophenotypic diversity for species diversity, then please cite it now.
As I have stated elsewhere, the onus is not on me to provide evidence. I am not claiming to have discovered an unbroken evolutionary progression. The type of evidence I was asking for was actually what you've been trying to provide, namely the identification of issues and problems with Arnold and Parker's work, but your last message made a false claim. It claimed that a particular set of terms and phrases indicating morphological flexibility were "used frequently in the study of foraminifera," and you offered this as evidence of a problem with Arnold and Parker's work. Even if true this wouldn't constitute an argument against their work unless you additionally showed how they failed to properly take this factor into account, but it isn't true! Only one of your terms and phrases appeared in as many as 1% of the papers on foraminifera, the rest much less, so the only way you could claim that they appeared "frequently" was to have made it up. Naturally since your only argument in that message was made up, I included a request for actual evidence, perhaps not the best choice of words, but by which I meant stuff that is actually true. It wasn't one of those invalid requests for proof that something doesn't exist. So I'm asking you to support your contention of problems with Arnold and Parker's work, so now let me address the rest of your message where you appear to be trying to make a valid attempt to do that, in contrast to your previous message where you just made stuff up. Actually, I see that RAZD has already addressed your claims in detail, so I'll just say that you still haven't even come close to supporting your claim that Arnold and Parker confused ecophenotypic diversity with species diversity. I'm curious what you think you gain if you're eventually successful in invalidating Arnold and Parker's work. Fossil progressions are found the world over. What does it matter if some progressions are a more detailed record of species change than others? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
I have many times requested that you provide links for your quotes, so from now on each time you post a quote without a link (or a reference if it's not on the web) I will suspend you for 24 hours. And on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. Bye everyone, it's been nice interacting with you. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is a typical creationist excuse to claim partisan bias, Kaichos Man, especially when there is none.
... on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. The problem is that there is no partisan requirement here. A fact Percy noted when he said:
Because this is an objective criteria I will continue as a participant in the discussion. You were not asked to do anything I have not done, and you were in violation of the Forum Rules quote: The reason is more than just being able to verify that your quotes are accurate representations of the material, it is basic honesty and part of intellectual integrity. More likely, this is just an excuse you tell yourself to avoid dealing with the issues that show your argument is weak at best, and false at worse, as you have been completely unable to justify your claims in any way. A typical ploy when a creationist loses an argument is to declare victory (usually on some "moral" grounds) and run away. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : 6 we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. Bye everyone, it's been nice interacting with you. It's been fun watching you squirm and whimper when you've been called on your lies. It's been fun to watch you run away crying when the moderators ask you to produce evidence for your lies. And the best fun of all is watching you cry and whine as you run away from your pathetic lies. You are a failed liar. You tried to lie to us, we caught you, we laughed at you, you failed. You have tried to do something utterly contemptible, namely lying. You failed. You are a contemptible failure at something that no decent person would even think of trying to do. You have failed at being a liar. Goodbye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Kaichos Man,
We do enforce the Forum Guidelines here irregardless of whether one is a creationist, an evolutionist, or somewhere on the fence. This is a science debate site, probably the only site on the web presenting creationists an opportunity to make their case that creationism and/or ID is science in a neutrally moderated environment. You should take advantage of the opportunity. Being neutral requires that Forum Guidelines violations be enforced equally. The Forum Guidelines state:
When I reply to you, the first ten minutes are usually spent poking around the web trying to find where your quotes came from. This not only isn't fair to others, it isn't always possible to find the source. All you're being asked to do is provide references for the sources you extract quotes from, something everyone else in this thread is already doing, and that some of those who reply to you are doing for you. You might take a peek at Message 70. Dr Adequate has been requested many times to refrain from calling people liars, and that post gained him a 24-hour suspension. That's the way neutral enforcement of the Forum Guidelines works. This site is your chance to successfully make your case in a fair fight. There's nothing partisan about requesting participants to reference their sources, and you send the wrong message when you run away in the face of this very reasonable request.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
And on that clearly partisan note, I shall quit the forum. Bye everyone, it's been nice interacting with you. As to me, I will keep learning new things whether I like it or not. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
quote: The above is from my penultimate post. You will see that it is clearly referenced, in line with forum guideline 7:
7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source. Nowhere that I can see in the guidelines is an actual link to the source required. However, if this has become a new requirement, I am happy to abide by it. Please understand that creationists are very much in the minority on this forum. We can be expected to be overly sensitive to any suggestion of bias or censorship from the moderators, all of whom (as far as I can see) are evolutionists.
quote: Percy, if it takes you ten minutes to google M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005and find the appropriate text, then I am tempted to believe that you are a quadraplegic who operates his computer by way of an instrument held between his teeth (if this is in fact true I apologise profusely, blushing and stammering). Now, suitably goaded by the oh-so-predictable chorus of "he's running away because he's losing", I shall resume battle. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. And who might you be? I've posted 189 times, and the only one you replied to was the one where you thought I wasn't coming back. You are obviously the type of guy who hitches his pants up and struts around talking tough after the other guy has left. How sad. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
All of the following relates to this source:
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2007_A04/index.html quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, I'll take this as a tacit admission that your first issue with ecophenotypic variation does not have the traction you need to disrupt Parker and Arnold's work, as now you are changing horses in typical creationist manner. You see a significant difference between the terms "ecophenotypic variation" and "clinal morphology"? That's not changing horses, RAZD. It might be changing saddle-blankets.
Microfossils provide a powerful means of studying speciation in the geological past. Under the assumption that fossil species are recognizable by their morphologies, ancestor—to—descendent relationships can be reconstructed from the sedimentary record. This approach requires that the full range of morphological variability through time and geography be quantified. The literature on such studies is still limited. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One such study was the one by Parker and Arnold eh? Yes- and it is still limited. But most importantly, RAZD, this was the preceding paragraph. Knappertsbusch then goes on to say:
quote: So he raises the "major difficulty" after referring to the studies that, presumably, include Arnold and Parker. Their study isn't the solution, RAZD. It's the problem. And as you point out Knappertsbusch suggests three solutions to the major difficulty: 1. Molecular research (not possible with extinct species), 2. Stable isotope chemistry (no suggestion it was used by Arnold and Parker, and only establishes preference in the depth habitat- useless for species identification, and 3.The careful monitoring of morphological changes through time in a selected microfossil lineage (which sounds a lot like what Arnold and Parker did) in discrete geographic areas where the paleoceanographic history is known a priori (which sounds a lot like what they didn't do). They used the whole geological column. Indeed they had to, in order to make their far-fetched claim. So having referenced (indirectly) the work of Parker and Arnold, Dr Knappertsbush then raised a "major difficulty" in foraminiferal taxonomy and goes on to list three possible solutions- none of which applies to the work of Parker and Arnold.
my impression from reading all these articles is that the known ecophenotypic variation is relatively small Your impression? Honestly, RAZD, has it come down to that? We've got Percy gauging veracity by the number of mentions on Google Scholar, and you putting forward your impressions. Move over, hypothesis. Here comes the hunch. Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given. Edited by Kaichos Man, : to put the bloody link in! "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024