|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi ICANT, hope you are well.
When I mention transmutation as the process of one creature becoming a totally different creature I am refered to the statement that was when man tried to turn lead into gold. Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way? If not then please once again read Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. about creationist misdefinitions:
quote: If you cannot find a single biologist that supports your definition of macroevolution then you are guilty of creationist misdefinition. Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.:
quote: It's really simple - you need to use the proper language to understand and be understood. Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity. At the micro scale this involves the changes between individuals within the breeding populations over time, up to the point where speciation occurs. At the macro scale this involves the increasing divergence of daughter populations after speciation has occurred, increasing the diversity of life by the continued evolution within the separate branches. Both occur through the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity. No additional mechanism is needed to explain the evidence. In the micro scale version we are looking at the changes within populations, while in the macro scale we are looking at how these changes within all the different populations results in greater diversity.
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. Louis Agassiz
quote: 128 years dead ... Franois Jules Pictet de la Rive - Wikipedia
quote: 139 years dead ... and his handbook was published before Origin of Species? History of paleontology - Wikipedia
quote: ... with the link to Sedgwick:
quote: ... 134 years dead All of these "critics" are people alive while Darwin was alive ... when there was a lot of reluctance to accept the theory Darwin proposed ... ... and nothing has happened in the over 100 ensuing years in biology and paleontology that provides any additional information about whether these ancient opinions were right or wrong ...? Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated. Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct? Enjoy. 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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq, having fun with a brick wall?
ICANT wants to see evidence that foraminifera evolved into something like a snail ... ignoring that forams are single cell while snails are not. I've yet to see his explanation why convergent evolution doesn't fill his criteria of "something like" another species.
I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage You could also look to see if the loci for the anomalous ERVs shows evidence of subsequent mutation in the human lineage, thus eradicating the evidence in our lineage while not affecting it in the chimp and gorilla lineages. Given that we are talking 1 or 2 ERVs out of several thousands, with the rate of mutations, plus the millions of years since the human\chimp\gorilla split, it would seem to be very reasonable to expect such subsequent mutations to happen. Certainly one would expect old ERVs to be lost at some point, as mutation\evolution is not just additive. Enjoy. 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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT
Doing well hope you are also doing well. I've been better, and I've been worse. Plus ca change plus ce le meme chose
There are very few places that mentions transmutation at all but the three gentlemen in his article did refer to transmutation which was the belief at that time is what was required to produce a different critter from an existing critter. Ah, so we are going back to the time when Darwin was writing "Origin of Species" to find mention of transmutation, not any current biology texts, and you'd rather use something that was over 150 years than modern biology.
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can. Ah, not quite: that is not what 'Macro-Evolution' means in the science of evolutionary biology, instead this how creationists try to misuse the term.
My definition of 'Macro-Evolution' = evolution above the level of species. From Berkeley Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Do you disagree with Berkeley? I don't disagree with Berkeley, I disagree with the way you interpret what Berkeley says. This is confirmation bias on your part, not careful reading to arrive at understanding. Berkeley goes on to say that macro-evolution is the formation of nested hierarchies by speciation and descent from common ancestors; instead of looking at the specific evolution within species (micro-evolution) you look at the effects of such evolution on speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies and descent from common ancestors. Berkeley does NOT say that some other kind of evolution occurs, no matter how much you try to interpret it this way. An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Small scale evolution: Defining microevolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: It is looking at the tree rather than the forest, to use another analogy. Speciation, the dividing line: Defining speciation - Understanding Evolution
quote: Large scale evolution: Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: We look at the growth of a forest from a single tree, seeds from the tree grow into new trees, and this process continues until the forest is formed. Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow. What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
quote: It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...
quote: ... and the forest does not grow by a mechanism new and separate from the growth of the individual trees, that each grow from seeds from other trees. Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection are processes of microevolution. Once speciation has occurred, the seed is planted for increased diversity as the two branches grow apart from their common ancestors and each other as each generation passes, producing seeds of their own that go on to grow into new trees, new clades of species.
The problem is there is no direct visible evidence that one critter has become a different critter. One critter becoming another critter would be necessary for all life forms to begin to exist from one life form. We have a 66 million year history of foraminifera presented by Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) in which there was 330 species of foraminifera began to exist. The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period. This is you equivocating on what is a "different critter" rather than a true statement about the evolution of foraminifera. The 330 species are different critters within the lexicon of evolutionary biology - they are different species. Curiously, in evolutionary biology, being different species is sufficient to be different critters. Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order, including multiple taxonomic classes between the order foraminifera and the individual species. Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote: Within each order there are superfamilies, within the superfamilies there are families, within the families there are genera, and within the genera there are species. Species from one genera within one family that is part of one superfamily are indeed "different critters" from the species from another genera within another family that is part of another superfamily, even though they are all part of the order of foraminifera --- just as you are a "different critter" from a ring-tailed lemur (which is also a member of the primate order) --unless you want to say that humans and lemurs are still just primates, that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order .... Fossil Record of Foraminifera
quote: Do those all look like the same critter to you? Do some look similar to snails? FORAM FACTS - OR AN INTRODUCTION TO FORAMINIFERA
quote: You once said that you would be impressed if forams evolved into something like a snail, something that is a bottom dwelling shell enclosed type of critter that use their pseudopodia to catch food and for locomotion ... do you change your name to RECANT? or do we see continued equivocation? Or is your standard of a "totally different critter" unrealistic, as evolution does not create "totally different critters" by speciation, but by continued evolution of daughter populations after speciation, including further speciation events. Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why? Pelycodus evolution Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : dbcode 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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT
If you want to explain how all those little changes in a critter can produce a competely different critter you probably wasting your time as there is not enough variation in the critters we have to look at to convince me. So you agree that all the evidence of diversity on earth and in the fossil and genetic record does not show you enough variation to qualify in your mind as a "completely different critter" - the question is whether this will cause you to reflect that maybe your concept of a "completely different critter" is what is in error.
But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter. According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.
But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years. According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.
Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans ... And yet the foraminifera genetically have similarly different critters ...
Just like you have faith that in the future there will be evidence that will validate the prediction of the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population. Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.
Now when you back off and look at life and you see a foraminifera and a horse you got two different critters. And you are trying to convince me they decended from the same life form. I don't think so. Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases. Enjoy. 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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, once again ...
I know a horse and a cow are different critters. I know a cow and a hog are different critters. I know a bird and a fish are different critters. How? What is your criteria?
I know a horse and a cow are different critters. Here (again?) is the result of the criteria used in science to differentiate them: Cattle - Wikipedia
quote: There are various living and extinct cow species within the Bos genus. The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses. Horse - Wikipedia
quote: There are various living and extinct horse species within the Equus genus, as well as zebras etc. The ORDER Perissodactyla includes all ODD toed ungulates, including horses, but not cows.
I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters. And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a horse. And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a horse will be a horse, Equus, Equidae, Perissodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow.
I know a cow and a hog are different critters. Pig - Wikipedia
quote: There are various living and extinct pig species within the Sus genus. The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses. The FAMILY Suidae includes pigs, but not cows, and the FAMILY Bovidae includes cows, but not pigs.
I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters. And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a pig. And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a pig will be a pig, Sus, Suidae, Suidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow. Nor will it be a horse or a fish or a bird. In all three of these cases a member of the Eutherian Infraclass has not produced anything that is not a Eutherian. This is like you saying that a member of the PHYLUM Foraminifera has not produced anything that is not a foraminifera. Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote: Even though the PHYLUM Foraminifera has produced the following ORDERS:
quote: With quite different characteristics and behaviors, each with different FAMILIES each with different GENERA and each with different SPECIES. Just a sample of the differences in four of these ORDERS: Allogromiida - Wikipedia
quote: Globigerinina - Wikipedia
quote: Miliolida - Wikipedia
quote: Rotaliida - Wikipedia
quote: Organic walled (ie soft) or aglutinated tests are entirely different from hyaline calcareous tests, and both are entirely different from calcareous, porcelacous tests, and all three are different from hyaline tests: these are indeed different critters as they wear different skins, different organizations and different behaviors. Allogromiida and their subsequent families, genera and species, ARE "different critters" to Globigerinida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and both ARE "different critters" to Miliolida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and all three ARE "different critters" to Rotaliida and their subsequent families, genera and species. Do you think their small size makes them the same critter?
I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters. What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the science of evolution does any theory say that any one "of those critters can produce one of the other critters" and that in fact if such a thing occurred that it would invalidate several theories in evolutionary biology. What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the evidence of evolution, from the world around us, through the paleontologic record and through the genetic record, is there a suggestion that such a cross-clade formation has occurred at any time in the past
RAZD writes: Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation. So why make the following statement?
RAZD writes: Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases. Why do my opinion have to invalidate evidence that has not been validated to date? You can't invalidate evidence, what you can invalidate is the theory that interprets the evidence to provide the best explanation known for all the evidence. Because science works by developing theories from known evidence to provide the best explanation for the data, make predictions of what you will see (a) if the theory is true or (b) what you will see if the theory is false, and then testing it to see if it can be invalidate. Science works by invalidation, not by validation. Why? Because theory can never be proven 100% true, because it is necessarily a tentative conclusion from the known data to formulate the best explanation that fits all the known data, and new data always carries the possibility of invalidation. At best a theory, especially one as tested as evolution, can be considered valid so far, if it has been extensively tested and is not invalidated by any results. Edited by RAZD, : clrty 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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
HiTaq,
The number of living species has been highly variable through time. The Permian extinction even saw the disappearance of roughly 95% of species. The K/T extinction even 65 million years ago saw the same extinction rate for species larger than 30 kg or so. It took quite some time for species diversity to return after these major extinction events. Smaller extinction events have also occurred, such as the extinction of megafauna after the last ice age. And we can go further: if the current trend in ecological change continues, and massive extinction does occur as a result of (a) human activity PLUS (b) climate change to a warmer overall climate, that the ToE would predict an increase in diversity and speciation to follow. Who knows, we may get undeniable evidence of "macro" changes to convince all but the most devout deniers. That would be fun to see. Enjoy. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024