|
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 again Kaichos Man
Message 73: 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. It's rather implicit in rule 6:
quote: Message 74: 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. There are lots of people that read these threads even thought they don't reply. I often don't reply to threads when other people are saying the things I would say, as that would only clutter up the thread and overload posters with many replies to the same post. I'm sure you've experienced this.
You see a significant difference between the terms "ecophenotypic variation" and "clinal morphology"? Yes. The time scale is different and the type of adaptation is different. Ecotypic variation occurs during the development of individual organisms in response to ecological factors, like pressure, salinity, temperature, average amounts of light, food availability, etc etc etc. In a different ecology they would develop differently. Whereas "clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients" occur over generations and involve genetic adaptation: Cline (biology) - Wikipedia
quote: Thus clinal morphological variation is similar to subspecies population variation, except that the populations overlap. In a different ecology they would (and do - hence the overlap) still develop the same.
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. Well, Kaichos Man, you certainly have not provided any information that would show otherwise. You've raised a point you think is a telling blow to the work of Parker and Arnold, but nobody can find evidence that shows more than minor variations within species in your references (when we can find them) or outright lies (like your creationist site).
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. Right, none of which affects the work of Parker and Arnold because it is all about the minor variations within species, with at most a mix up of closely related species (each directly descended from the same parent species). Look again at what defines the "major problem":
quote: In otherwords, the difficulty is in distinguishing species differentiation from subpopulation variation in clines from ecophenotype variation in individuals. It seems that the "major difficulty" is sorting out subspecies versus species, a rather common problem in taxonomy (see Asian Greenish Warblers as an example of this problem). This still does not affect the overall lineages of descent from parent populations and the changes in species seen over millions of years as sorted out by Parker and Arnold, as the only effect is whether the ends have one or several twigs at the tips. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : more 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 |
Kaichos Man writes: 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. And where's the citation for the first quote in Message 64?
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... Maybe a few minutes for that one, and a few minutes for the next, and a few more minutes for the next, and some take longer than a few minutes. But for the particular Google you suggest, when you cut-n-paste "M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005" into Google Scholar it finds no pages. So now you have to edit it. First you try adding spaces after the periods (still nothing), then if that doesn't work you remove the initials and punctuation and just leave the last names (still nothing), so then you remove the year (still nothing). Google suggests an alternative spelling for two of the names, but this returns more than a page of results. Which ones to look at first? So you have to carefully read the titles and make best guesses. It's easy to spend ten minutes looking up a citation like that. You're obviously cutting-n-pasting from webpages. Presumably you have two browser windows or tabs open, one for your message in EvC Forum, the other for the webpage you're cutting-n-pasting from. Go to the address box of the page with the quote, click (it will select the entire URL), hit Ctrl-C, position the cursor at the appropriate place in your message box and click, hit Ctrl-V. Takes 10 seconds at most. Please. As a courtesy to everyone else, if you cut-n-paste something, provide a link to the webpage it came from. Edited by Admin, : Minor clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foxdog Junior Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
The problem here is that many of you are attempting to spin the definition of a scientific theory. In order for something to be called a theory...it must be observable, testable, and predictable....i.e. Gravity is a theory because its effects meet this criteria.
Testable - Drop somethingObservable - That something falls Predictable - What goes up, must come down. In practice, Evolution is neither fact, nor theory because it is "Assumed" to be correct prior to any research being conducted.....ie.."Evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact..."Now lets go find some evidence to prove it". Contrary to the assertions of main stream evolutionists (who also just happen to be atheists by the way), evolution is not testable, nor can it make any predictions. Sure one can assert that evolution is observable through fossil records; but if the records were as clear and unambiguous as many claim then there wouldnt be any disagreement among scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Welcome to EvC, Foxdog! You may have a lot of fun here, if you survive the evisceration your first post is about to suffer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Contrary to the assertions of main stream evolutionists (who also just happen to be atheists by the way), evolution is not testable, nor can it make any predictions. Sure one can assert that evolution is observable through fossil records; but if the records were as clear and unambiguous as many claim then there wouldnt be any disagreement among scientists. Wow!! 3 PRATTS in the same sentence. 1 Evolution is testable ever hear of genomes, fossils, DNA etc.2 all evolutionists aren't Atheists many are theists, deists & agnostics. 3 The disagreements aren't over evolution but as to the processes which is healthy for evolution since it keeps scientists searching for evidence. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Foxdog and welcome to the fray.
In practice, Evolution is neither fact, nor theory ... A few quick points on distinguishing the three aspects of evolution:
Contrary to the assertions of main stream evolutionists (who also just happen to be atheists by the way), ... Why do creationists keep making this easily falsified assertion? I'm no atheist, and there are more theist evolutionists than atheists.
Sure one can assert that evolution is observable through fossil records; but if the records were as clear and unambiguous as many claim then there wouldnt be any disagreement among scientists. And yet there is very little disagreement on the validity of evolution - how can that be ... unless the disagreements are about minor points rather than the major structure? If you want to discuss these issues further, please start a new thread.
The problem here is that ... None of your points relate to the topic, and are likely to cause topic drift as people nail you for your lack of knowledge about evolution, gratuitous assertions regarding atheists and disregard for the evidence. Please see Message 1 for what the topic of this thread involves. 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 formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting 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 formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Edited by RAZD, : clrty 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foxdog Junior Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
LOL...Thanks for the welcome, and the heads up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foxdog Junior Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Please note that I said many "Main Stream" evolutionists, such as the ones we typically see promoted by the media...i.e. Richard Dawkins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Foxdog,
Any comments on the topic? You know, the issue raised in Message 1 quote: Also see
Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 for more details. This forum generally likes people to stick to the topics in each thread, and if you can't find one about a topic you want to discuss, you can start a new topic at
Proposed New Topics Thanks for your consideration. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : dbcode 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Foxdog!
You must have worked hard to cram so many fallacies into a single post. I see you have already drawn three responses, but fallacy bashing is so much fun that I just can't resist responding myself.
Foxdog writes: In practice, Evolution is neither fact, nor theory because it is "Assumed" to be correct prior to any research being conducted... The book introducing the theory of evolution to the world, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, presented evidence about variation under domestication, variation in nature, competition between species, geology, paleontology, morphology, embryology and more. You should try reading it sometime. And of course, scientists have added massively to the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, including in the area of population genetics that drove the modern synthesis between Darwin's conception of evolution and genetics.
Contrary to the assertions of main stream evolutionists (who also just happen to be atheists by the way)... The majority of evolutionary biologists are theists. Only a tiny proportion of the world's population are atheists. Even according to the Evidence For God website, which undoubtedly overstates the case, only 41% of biologists are atheists (see Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?). Ken Miller, probably the best known living evolutionist, is a devout Catholic. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical. Scientifically, except for a tiny group of evangelical scientists, acceptance of evolution is based upon the evidence, not upon religious belief or lack thereof. That is why scientists of all religions and no religion accept the theory of evolution, and why it is primarily only literalist-minded Christian evangelicals who reject it.
Sure one can assert that evolution is observable through fossil records; but if the records were as clear and unambiguous as many claim then there wouldnt be any disagreement among scientists. But there is no meaningful disagreement among scientists about evolution as the unifying principle within biology. There's a public controversy brought about by evangelical attempts to teach their religion as science, but there's no scientific controversy. Creationists would have to actually publish their work in scientific journals and attend scientific conferences for your claim to be true, but by and large they don't do that. Nice oh-fer! Can you keep it up? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Foxdog writes: Please note that I said many "Main Stream" evolutionists, such as the ones we typically see promoted by the media...i.e. Richard Dawkins. In that case I think you meant "prominent" or "highly visible". In my previous post I gave you two examples of prominent evolutionists who are religious. Many on both sides of the creation/evolution debate, including myself, find Dawkins an acerbic, divisive and alienating influence who we could best do without. The most helpful thing he could do, in my opinion, is to shut up. But even if all evolutionists *were* actually atheists, judging evolution on that basis is simply committing yet another fallacy, guilt by association. And probably an additional fallacy as well, the conspiracy fallacy, i.e., that the theory of evolution is not science but just an atheist conspiracy to bring about the end of Christianity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Foxdog writes:
And Kenneth Miller?
Please note that I said many "Main Stream" evolutionists, such as the ones we typically see promoted by the media...i.e. Richard Dawkins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foxdog Junior Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
LOL...Ok folks...Points well taken. Just testing the waters. Sorry for the digression...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Ecotypic variation occurs during the development of individual organisms in response to ecological factors, like pressure, salinity, temperature, average amounts of light, food availability, etc etc etc. In a different ecology they would develop differently. Oh yes. Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. Which means that, if you are identifying species by morphology alone (a la Parker, Arnold and their microphotography) you've got Buckley's chance of establishing a concrete, inarguable, specific evolutionary progression. At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know.
Look again at what defines the "major problem": 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. Furthermore, migration of similar forms from neighbouring areas can mask evolutionary or ecophenotypic signals in the sediments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In otherwords, the difficulty is in distinguishing species differentiation from subpopulation variation in clines from ecophenotype variation in individuals. It seems that the "major difficulty" is sorting out subspecies versus species No it isn't. It is:
morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change. "Morphological sequences" being precisely what was presented by Parker and Arnold. They can mimic evolutionary change, RAZD. Not a good idea, therefore, to put them forward as "unbroken evolutionary sequences". Let's take a look at the way the University of South Florida views the problem:
quote: reference: http://gsa.confex.com/...5AM/finalprogram/abstract_97460.htm "Taxonomic quagmire", RAZD. That term does not allow for minor technical difficulties. McCloskey is obviously referring to the many instances where molecular research has demanded a revision of the classification of extant species of foraminifera. I can post references if you like, though I am sure you have encountered them in your research, as I have. This is current research into living species. A quagmire! We don't know what we're looking at with live foraminifera, RAZD. How on earth can we interpret anything from fossilized remains? "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: |
Welcome, Foxdog.
Please note that I said many "Main Stream" evolutionists, such as the ones we typically see promoted by the media...i.e. Richard Dawkins. I won't hear a word said against Dickie Dawkins, Foxdog. This man has provided Creationists with more ammunition than the rest of the evolutionary fraternity combined. Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won. Both sides are gobsmacked that the other side can't see how badly they have lost. I tell you this because to expect victory -far less than to claim it- is to invite disillusionment. As RAZD would say, enjoy! Edited by Kaichos Man, : crap grammar "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