Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
35 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,309 Year: 22,345/19,786 Month: 908/1,834 Week: 408/500 Day: 41/66 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process
Percy
Member
Posts: 19116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 151 of 158 (556524)
04-20-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by davids-evolution
04-19-2010 10:52 PM


Re: response to transitional storyline
davids-evolution writes:

I have found that a quote can be useful so as to give pause or reflect on the need to not be dogmatic about a position (such as yours).

Wouldn't someone reading the quote you provided conclude that Patterson agrees that there's a lack of transitional fossils? And isn't it true that in reality Patterson disagrees that there's a lack of transitional fossils? And isn't this misrepresentation of Patterson's views what RAZD was actually referring to?

I agree that pausing to reflect on a quote can be rewarding, but when the quote is inaccurate or misleading then the reflections will likely be about that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by davids-evolution, posted 04-19-2010 10:52 PM davids-evolution has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 152 of 158 (556533)
04-20-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by davids-evolution
04-16-2010 10:57 PM


Re: general thoughts on transitions
The genetic link to chimps from humans is something I would question.

Why would you question it? Do you have evidence that scientists are not aware of? If not, then the conclusion stands.

Similarity does not equate common ancestry. That is an assumption brought to the table beforehand.

That is not the assumption. It is the pattern of similarity which evidences common ancestry and evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. It is the pattern of similarity we should is if evolution is true, and it is the pattern we observe in both the genomes of living organisms and in the fossil record. Since genetics is a bit off topic here I will only breifly mention this paper which states:

quote:
Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). . .

Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. ​(Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.


What we see in ERV's is more than just similarity. What we see is a pattern of similarity that we know evolution produces, and only that pattern.

As for fossils, this nested hierarchy is seen again. We do see fossils with a mixture of modern human features and basal ape features just as we should see if evolution is true. We do not see mixtures of features which would violate this nested hierarchy pattern, such as fossils with a mixture of cat and basal ape features. If the "common creator" idea were true there is no reason that we should see this nested pattern of similarity. We should just as likely see a fossil with a mixture of cat and ape features as we do a mixture of human and ape features.

Humans also have large segments of their DNA in common with the dog and a significant minority of it with a mouse.

As we should, being that we share a common ancestor with dogs and mice.

Does this prove genetically that we are from a common ancestor? Saying it does only begs the question, a logical fallacy if it is used as an explanation.

False. It is possible to both share DNA with other species and falsify common descent. Again, it is the pattern of similarity that matters here.

Also, are you trying to say that if humans shared a common ancestor with other species that they should not share DNA in common?

Claiming that evolution as a mechanism in genetics or paleontology results is the true answer smacks of claiming to know more than one can seriously offer as a 'scientist.'

What I can say as a scientist is that the theory of evolution makes very specific and risky predictions. Those predictions can be tested by both the fossil record and the genomes of living species. The theory of evolution has passed these tests for 150 years now. It has passed literally millions of experiments where it could have failed. It didn't. I will never claim that the theory of evolution is 100% true. I will never claim that anything is 100% true. However, I will say that a theory that has passed 150 years of testing and millions of tries at falsifying it can be considered a fact for all intents and purposes. Yes, there are still some fine details to work out, but if the theory were generally not true it would have been discovered already.

Scientists come up with hypothesis to test them, rather than to just describe similarity between animals. A good science experiment would be to show fundamental change in genetics occuring that doesn't kill off the animal it is happening in, as it becomes a significantly different animal.

Look no further than the genomes of living species. They differ can differ by quite a bit without adversely affecting the species. Humans and chimps differ by 2% or 5%, depending on whether or not you include indels. Are you saying that humans do not benefit from those differences?

If I use the same computer language and similar segments of code to write two seperate programs, that doesn't mean that the second program was naturally selected out of the first. They weren't the same program at some time. It only shows that the designer of these programs used a similar language to do two seperate 'projects,' if you will.

Please show that the only result of reusing and rewriting programs would be a nested hierarchy. For example, please show that a programmer would not or could not copy a program block from one lineage and drop it into another. From my knowledge, programmers do this all of the time without any though to preserving a nested hierarchy. Therefore, if design were true then we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. If evolution were true then we would expect to see nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by davids-evolution, posted 04-16-2010 10:57 PM davids-evolution has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 04-20-2010 12:40 PM Taq has responded
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2010 5:42 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 153 of 158 (556584)
04-20-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taq
04-20-2010 9:37 AM


Re: general thoughts on transitions
Taq writes:

Please show that the only result of reusing and rewriting programs would be a nested hierarchy.

I will vouch for the fact that the software development process does not produce a nested hierarchy. "Dependency chaos" might be a more accurate term.

At any time a software developer can incorporate software from a completely different lineage, and in fact I did just that last week when I released a new version of the software for this board's control panel (not visible to non-directors, sorry) that takes advantage of a software package called "jscolor". This would be analogous to a cow giving birth to a calf with hands.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 9:37 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 3:18 PM Percy has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 154 of 158 (556627)
04-20-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
04-20-2010 12:40 PM


Re: general thoughts on transitions
I will vouch for the fact that the software development process does not produce a nested hierarchy.

And I can vouch for the fact that designed organisms do not fall into a nested hierarchy. With the revolutionary techniques in the field of molecular biology it is now possible to create chimeric organisms that express traits from many other species, clearly violating the nested hierarchy. I have personally designed E. coli that express human proteins, and it is quite common to create "humanised" mice that express human proteins of interest. The infamous green glowing mice are an example of a mouse expressing a jellyfish green fluorescent protein. Many expression systems in eukaryotic systems use the E. coli lacZ reporter system. As soon as humans were capable of designing organisms themselves they threw out the idea of a nested hierarchy.

Staying with fossils here, we must then ask why we don't see clear violations of a nested hierarchy. Why do we only see mixtures of characteristics that evolution predicts we should see. Why don't we see bats with feathers, birds with three middle ear bones, or a crocoduck? Why do we only see mammal-like reptiles, dinosaur-like birds, human-like apes, and fish-like amphibians? Why not bird-like mammals or crocodilian-like ducks?

What creationists consistently miss is that it is not the transitionals we do see that supports the theory of evolution. It is also the transitionals we don't see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 04-20-2010 12:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 04-20-2010 3:54 PM Taq has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 155 of 158 (556640)
04-20-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Taq
04-20-2010 3:18 PM


Re: general thoughts on transitions
Taq writes:

And I can vouch for the fact that designed organisms do not fall into a nested hierarchy. With the revolutionary techniques in the field of molecular biology it is now possible to create chimeric organisms that express traits from many other species, clearly violating the nested hierarchy. I have personally designed E. coli that express human proteins, and it is quite common to create "humanised" mice that express human proteins of interest. The infamous green glowing mice are an example of a mouse expressing a jellyfish green fluorescent protein. Many expression systems in eukaryotic systems use the E. coli lacZ reporter system. As soon as humans were capable of designing organisms themselves they threw out the idea of a nested hierarchy.

Seeing this explained in this context reveals how obviously God designs differently from people. People think of genes from existing species as raw material with which to play around through insertion with the genes of other species. If God designed life then he did not design the way people do.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 3:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 4:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 156 of 158 (556658)
04-20-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
04-20-2010 3:54 PM


Re: general thoughts on transitions
If God designed life then he did not design the way people do.

Precisely. This throws a big wrench in the workings of the modern ID movement. One of the overarching themes is that we can compare biology to human made things and find similarities, hence evidencing design. For example, Behe compares the bacterial flagellum to an outboard motor. The Grandfather of ID William Paley compared the movement of the heavens to a pocket watch. Time and again we see comparisons of DNA to computer language, as seen above. However, the second we hit something that is different from human design the designer becomes a mysterious force that acts different than us, designs different than us, and is incomprehensible on most matters. IOW, it's like nailing jello to a wall.

If ID is ever going to be part of science it must rectify these types of inconsistencies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 04-20-2010 3:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 157 of 158 (556676)
04-20-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taq
04-20-2010 9:37 AM


Re: general thoughts on transitions (while misunderstanding evolution)
Hi Taq, we are getting a bit off topic here, however I wanted to point out one little tid-bit:

Scientists come up with hypothesis to test them, rather than to just describe similarity between animals. A good science experiment would be to show fundamental change in genetics occuring that doesn't kill off the animal it is happening in, as it becomes a significantly different animal.

Look no further than the genomes of living species. ...

You are missing his point. Here davids-evolution, who claims we are premature in labeling him a creationist, is making the amusing claim that evolution occurs through the instant generation of hopeful monsters within individual living organisms.

Now we return to a discussion of the evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record ...

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 152 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 9:37 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by barbara, posted 09-08-2010 3:53 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 158 of 158 (580311)
09-08-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
04-20-2010 5:42 PM


Re: general thoughts on transitions (while misunderstanding evolution)
All fossils and all that is living are transitional life forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2010 5:42 PM RAZD 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