Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 3:32 PM
28 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,729 Year: 9,765/19,786 Month: 2,187/2,119 Week: 223/724 Day: 62/93 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Intermediates
jimgerard
Junior Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 2
From: ames, iowa, U.S.
Joined: 03-10-2010


Message 46 of 52 (549744)
03-10-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
12-29-2009 10:45 PM


Re: Let's talk knees.
AndrewPD writes:


And here’s how the future of this conversation is going to go:

Evolutionists: Chimpanzees fit between humans and gorillas.

Andrew: There is no intermediate between chimpanzees and humans.

Evolutionists: Bonobos fit between humans and chimpanzees.

Andrew: There is no intermediate between bonobos and humans.

etc.
.

I loved most of your post, especially the "Evolution isn't like leggos" but I don't understand this, are you being facetious? There certainly would be no 'link' between humans and gorillas or gorillas and chimps, we didn't evolve from them they aren't ancestral but fellow modern species, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2009 10:45 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
chrisMuriel
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 04-07-2010


Message 47 of 52 (554248)
04-07-2010 1:49 AM


I believe Andrew has a point here. If evolution indeed happened or is still happening, there would be intermediates still extant. To say that its the chimp or the gorilla is going off the cuff. I am also very uncomfortable calling Neandertahls, cro-magnon, australopothicus, etc. the "ancestors of man." Except for darwinians, they could have been altogether different species. I am more open to the idea of ET experiements on earth, which might be the "stages" of evolution that we see, and present a more feasible theory for the origin of life than TOE.
Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Huntard, posted 04-07-2010 7:38 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2010 8:04 AM chrisMuriel has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 48 of 52 (554292)
04-07-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by chrisMuriel
04-07-2010 1:49 AM


Hello Chris, and welcome to EvC! Never had the pleasure to converse with a necromancer here before.

chrisMuriel writes:

If evolution indeed happened or is still happening, there would be intermediates still extant.


And they are, every species alive is an intermediate between itself and it's offspring.

I am also very uncomfortable calling Neandertahls, cro-magnon, australopothicus, etc. the "ancestors of man."

Why? Everything so far points to them being just that.

Except for darwinians, they could have been altogether different species.

This might come as a shock to you, but they are altogether different species. Even to "darwinians".

I am more open to the idea of ET experiements on earth, which might be the "stages" of evolution that we see...

Ok, any evidence?

...and present a more feasible theory for the origin of life than TOE.

The theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by chrisMuriel, posted 04-07-2010 1:49 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19884
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 49 of 52 (554297)
04-07-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by chrisMuriel
04-07-2010 1:49 AM


Welcome to the fray, chrisMuriel.

If evolution indeed happened or is still happening, there would be intermediates still extant.

It has, it is, there are.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. This has been observed in the world around us in all living species. This is fact.

We also see the same patterns in the fossil record, such as the record for Pelycodus:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


Note that every level is intermediate between the one below and the one above -- every fossil in that series is an intermediate.

To say that its the chimp or the gorilla is going off the cuff. I am also very uncomfortable calling Neandertahls, cro-magnon, australopothicus, etc. the "ancestors of man." Except for darwinians, they could have been altogether different species. I am more open to the idea of ET experiements on earth, which might be the "stages" of evolution that we see, and present a more feasible theory for the origin of life than TOE.

Curiously what you are comfortable with, and what your opinion is on evolution, etc, are both completely incapable of altering reality in any way.

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:
quotes are easy

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.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by chrisMuriel, posted 04-07-2010 1:49 AM chrisMuriel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by chrisMuriel, posted 04-08-2010 7:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
chrisMuriel
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 04-07-2010


Message 50 of 52 (554422)
04-08-2010 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
04-07-2010 8:04 AM


Hey RAZD, Thanks!
I checked the link you posted, but i don't know how much of it is objective evidence and how much is speculation. You may check this link here to see exactly what i mean:

http://paleontology.suite101.com/...ry_dinosaurs_and_fossils

Curiously what you are comfortable with, and what your opinion is on evolution, etc, are both completely incapable of altering reality in any way.

One man's reality is another man's hoax. That's all I can say.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2010 8:04 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2010 12:03 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded
 Message 52 by AdminSlev, posted 04-09-2010 2:36 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19884
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 51 of 52 (554564)
04-09-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by chrisMuriel
04-08-2010 7:45 AM


hoax or reality check?
Hi chrisMuriel, you're welcome.

I checked the link you posted, but i don't know how much of it is objective evidence and how much is speculation.

Always a good thing to recognize when you are not an expert in a field.

You may check this link here to see exactly what i mean:
http://paleontology.suite101.com/...ry_dinosaurs_and_fossils

I'm curious why you felt you needed to link to an article that discusses a paper, rather than the paper itself, especially as the link is provided and the whole paper is online:

quote:
Dinosaur experts Mark Goodwin (of UB Berkeley) and Jack Horner (of Museum of the Rockies) recently published an academic paper in the online, peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, outlining the similarities between species in a specific group of dinosaurs: pachycephalosaurids.

Especially as your article seems to make conclusions not found in the actual paper, but seems to sensationalize the actual information.

One man's reality is another man's hoax. That's all I can say.

Of course you must realize that a hoax is "something intended to deceive or defraud" - ie an intentional fraud committed for the purpose of fooling people.

This would be like stating quotes from people that are not part of the academic paper cited as the sole reference for the article in question, while implying that they are an integral part of the paper.

Perhaps you think you have a real bonafide hoax that you can list on Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ... but I doubt it.

Instead what you are seeing is the process of science refining knowledge based on additional information.

the actual paper:

quote:
Extended neoteny and late stage allometric growth increase morphological disparity between growth stages in at least some dinosaurs. Coupled with relatively low dinosaur density in the Upper Cretaceous of North America, ontogenetic transformational representatives are often difficult to distinguish. For example, many hadrosaurids previously reported to represent relatively small lambeosaurine species were demonstrated to be juveniles of the larger taxa. Marginocephalians (pachycephalosaurids + ceratopsids) undergo comparable and extreme cranial morphological change during ontogeny.

... Now, with a greater number of pachycephalosaurid skulls from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America available for study, and the use of comparative cranial morphology, histology and computer tomography, multiple lines of evidence support our alternative hypothesis that Dracorex hogwartsia and Stygimoloch spinifer represent earlier growth stages in a single taxon, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.


So the scientists (that are experts in their field) have refined our knowledge of dinosaurs based on new information, specifically sufficient information to show the growth transitions involved.

Was the previous classification as three different species a hoax to intentionally mislead people? Or was it the best explanation available at the time from the limited information available at the time?

Even assuming that it was true that 1/3 of all dinosaur species classification are actually developmental stages of other dinosaurs, does that alter evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet in any significant way?

Even if we assume that 1/3 of all known fossil species is so misclassified, does that alter evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet in any significant way?

Please consider, first and foremost, that the information in the article is brought to you by scientists doing science, that this is an increase in the accuracy of our knowledge, not a refutation of it, and that it in no way suggests that evolution is wrong.

So thanks for bringing this article to my attention:

Extreme Cranial Ontogeny in the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus
John R. Horner1*, Mark B. Goodwin2
1 Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America,
2 Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America
PLoS ONE 4(10): e7626. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007626
Download PDF

It will be interesting to see how many creationists misrepresent this article.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by chrisMuriel, posted 04-08-2010 7:45 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded

  
AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 2812 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


Message 52 of 52 (554572)
04-09-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by chrisMuriel
04-08-2010 7:45 AM


Hi chrisMuriel, welcome to EvC!

One of the forum guidelines is to not just give links as argumentation. Rather, we prefer that you present yourself the argument/fact/main points of the article/paper/commentary you want to present, and then give the link as reference.

Thanks, I hope you will find it pleasant to discuss here!

{For the record, the next message was spam and was deleted - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by chrisMuriel, posted 04-08-2010 7:45 AM chrisMuriel has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019