|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.
You can determine if a structure is vestigial without assuming evolution. If a structure serves a secondary or rudimentary function compared to the homologous structure in another species then it is vestigial. This is the definition that Darwin used. This does not assume common descent or evolution. Therefore, the human vermiform appendix is vestigial because it does not serve the function of breaking down plant matter as part of a caecum as seen in other species. Instead, it serves a secondary and rudimentary role of housing gut flora, and even this is not a vital function for the health of the species. If you removed the appendix from an herbivore they would die from starvation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: they use marine mammal vestigial bits as AHA evidence that evolution occurred in a important way. In using this evidence they must be consistent. Detective (on witness stand): We found evidence that this woman was shot by the defendant.
Attorney: But, you also found evidence that that other woman was stabbed by the defendant?
Detective: Yes, that's correct. He shot one person, and stabbed someone else.
Attorney: I admit that you have pretty good evidence that he stabbed that other woman. But, doesn't the fact that he didn't stab this woman show that he isn't a murderer?
Detective: I don't understand the question.
Judge: Please rephrase.
Attorney: You declared stab wounds with his fingerprints to be evidence that he is a murderer. So, doesn't this mean that the lack of a stab wound on this woman is evidence that he is not a murderer?
Detective: Um... no. I didn't actually say that. I mean, yeah, that woman was stabbed and this woman was shot, but the evidence still points to the same guy having killed them both.
Attorney: You fired first on Fort Sumter, Detective. Now, you must be consistent with that evidence: if stab wounds are evidence that my client is a murderer, than the noticeable scarcity of stab wounds when we look at all his alleged victims is surely evidence that he is not a murderer, right?
Detective: But... stab wounds aren't the only evidence. There's fingerprints, gunshot res---
Attorney: Once you've retreated to the line that the shooting is a special case, you can no longer use it as evidence that my client is a murderer!
Detective: Was there a question in there? -----
Robert Byers writes: if you use vestigial bits to make a conclusion then the opposite conclusion is better made by the fantastic poverty of vestigial points. I don't know how they do things in Canada, but I distinctly remember being thoroughly taught the concept of opposites throughout my primary education in the United States. So much so, in fact, I feel qualified to teach it to you. Watch: The opposite of "existent" is "non-existent."The opposite of "few" ("paucity") is "many" ("abundance"). Our conclusion: evolutionOpposite conclusion: not evolution. Our evidence: existence of vestigial parts.Opposite evidence: non-existence of vestigial parts. Do you see how "there are few vestigial parts" is not the opposite of "vestigial parts exist"? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Percy writes: Robert Byers writes: Yes marine creatures are a special case. They are amongst the few with "unused' remnants of previous body realities. It is not true that marine creatures are a special case. Just scanning through the Wikipedia article on vestigiality I see they list a number of examples of vestigiality, like whale leg and pelvis bones, ostrich, emu and other flightless bird wings, cavefish eyes, snake pelvis bones, and flightless insect wings. In people alone there are several examples of vestigiality, like ear muscles, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone and body hair. So could you please stop repeating the claim that marine creatures are a special case of vestigiality, and also cease employing it as an argument in support of your assertion that evolution makes conflicting claims about vestigiality. It makes no sense to keep employing an argument that is so obviously untrue.
This is different from you claiming everything is a reused and so vestigial thing. Despite repeated explanations you continue to hold a badly distorted understanding of both vestigiality and reuse. They're not synonyms. I'd be very interested in a discussion where our actual explanations and perspectives were being challenged, but your responses consist mostly of bald reassertions of your misunderstandings. Maybe it would help to focus on specific examples. In the evolution of bird wings from the forelimbs of dinosaurs, the bones of the forelimbs have for the most part become bones of the wings. That's reuse, a modification of an existing form for a new use. In the evolution of snakes the pelvis bones became unnecessary and functionless and for the most part disappeared, but some snake species still have rudimentary pelvises. That's vestigiality, which is loss of most or all function with no repurposing for a new function. Because evolution is a gradual and continuous process we should also be able to identify organs and/or structures that are on their way toward either vestigiality on the one hand or reuse for a new function on the other, but I am not myself aware of any good examples. Maybe the appendix is an example. Since surgical removal has no discernible effect on fecundity or longevity, one would expect that even it's current minor function as a store for useful bacteria would diminish further while the organ becomes smaller and smaller. Perhaps one of the biologists can chime in with more examples. Evolutionary theory is based upon observations of the real world. Your attempts to reconcile evolutionary theory with the real world with an eye toward assessing how well they align is the right approach, but in the real world marine creatures are not the exception in displaying vestigiality. The evidence from the real world tells us that vestigiality is present in all life, its one of the outcomes of evolution in a changing environment, and it is necessary that you acquire an accurate understanding of actual prevalence of things like vestigiality and other evidence from the real world if your assessments of evolution are to have any validity. Look at it this way. If I were to argue that Christianity is false because Jesus Christ doesn't really deliver presents on the morning of his birthday, and if I were to refuse to concede my confusion over many pages of discussion, would the fact that no one was able to convince me otherwise make my arguments any more valid? No, of course not. If I can't get my facts straight then any arguments I make based upon them won't be valid. You're suffering from the same problem. Get your facts straight, and then your arguments will make more sense. --Percy Posters here have told me that all bones etc in being reused are therefore vestigial from previous bodies.I do see vestigial as only unused remains of previous used parts. i am the one trying to segregate here. I have clearly said there are few creatures with these remains. marine mammals i just emphasize. I know the very short list. in fact i've said its less then 0.01% or so.whats your %. its just a few creatures and a few creatures not using wings etc. its makes my point about the poverty and not the point , you seem to be trying to say, of a common thing. its very rare and special. Thats why posters here retreat to EVERYTHING we have is vestigial in reality. Evolution here is making a absurd numbers claim.its trying to prove evolution by vestigials in a few wHEN in fact it proves the opposite point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Peter writes: A notion ain't evidence. This got pretty well covered by others.
in fact in order to discover species flowing into/out of each other over time is founded not on biology but presumptions that geology shows this time too have taken place. It's based, in part, on biological observations of time-ordered, preserved remains. The time-ordering part is (I suppose) geology if we are talking about fossils, the observations of structure etc. are biology.
there is not biological evidence for evolution. That's odd ... I could have sworn there was a few gigatonnes of biological evidence cited on THIS site. Maybe I'm just interpretting it differently.
This is a flaw in the thinking. Perhaps you could ellaborate and explain the flaw through (perhaps) commonly used examples of evidence for evolution ... just a thought. the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology.without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails. The observation of the casts of bodies is not demonstrating evolution . They could easily be seen as simply a diverse speciation. Like today in the amazon or with seals or cichlid fishes. In studying the fossils there is very little biology going on.Biology is about living/or recently living tissue and delicate instruments to handle it. Pick axes and dynamite ain't biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: Robert Byers writes: first there are no such things as mammals or retiles .There are just kinds. These groups are just wrong ideas on lumping things together. you might be surprised to know that the biblical definition of "kind" loosely matches up with a much smaller grouping than something like mammalia or saurischia. as i explained many years ago in Message 290 of the define "kind" thread, that even though the authors of the bible were likely speaking in the vernacular, their usage loosely lines up with the "family" level on the linnean classification system. that's above genus. so, for example, dogs, wolves, and foxes (all from the canidae family) would all the be same "kind", but bears, skunks, otters, and racoons wouldn be separate "kinds".
Bats are indeed just flying rats. That is a real adaptation after the flood. of course, the bible lists bats as their own "kind" (strangely grouping them with birds, leviticus 11:19). but bats, chiroptera, are an order, with many many families under it. same with rodents. there are many, many families of rats. you are, essentially, proposing biblical macro-evolution.
In fact there is a common blueprint for echolocation in bats, whales etc. two extremely distantly related animals that used the exact same form of a particular adaptation, not found in any other related species between the two, would be a wonderful falsification of evolution. it would mean that "designs" were co-opted across non-hereditary lines. fortunately, the two systems aren't even close to homologous. bats use their ears, dolphins use a giant fatty drum at the front of their skull. I understand the radar genes for both dolphins and bats is the same.off thread but the bible doesn't spell out what kinds are. in fact i would say bears and dogs are the same kind. further bats is rightly in the bird section as it is only about a flying division.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
DrJones* writes: We all have eyes from a common design. Yet its not a sign of biological relatedness
Really? What are the common design features between humans eyes and those of an ant? Be specific. having two eyes is a very common thing in nature. From a common blueprint.Insects have more eyes but even then they are eyes. Hinting a common idea. Unlikely if evolution was at work upon diverse beginnings and a long time of shaping everything else like crazy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Bats are indeed just flying rats. That is a real adaptation after the flood. From what mythological nonsense did you come up with this? Bats & rats aren't even that closely related. From the Ancestor's Tail pp174 & 192: Primates, Rodentia & Lagomorpha are in one sub class whereas Bats (2 orders) Megachiroptera & Microchiroptera together with the Insectivora, Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Carnivora & Pholidta are in the subclass Lauasiatheria This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat.so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. relative. there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. Another case of creationist super-macro-evolution I guess. Ape to human in 5-7 million years, no way, Rat to bat in a few thousand years, no problem. Just out of interest where were all the birds that the sky was so empty? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RB writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. Can I ask why just rodents? Why not monkeys or foxes or even humans? Why didn't lots of different creatures "instantly upon spreading out from the ark find an empty sky and fill it somewhat"? Imagine a race of humans with wings and radar. By the terms of your argument this should be possible "instantly" given a nice empty sky. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Robert Byers writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. O_o Do you have any idea how diverse bats are? One in five mammal species are bats. 1 in 5! Bats aren't some obscure offshoot of rats, they're an extraordinarily diverse and variable group of animals. Bats are an order of mammals, equivalent in significance to the group Carnivora that includes dogs, cats, seals, weasels, bears, red panda, civets and so on. Are you really suggesting that they can be written off as rats who saw the sky and wanted to fly? Orville's more successful rat relatives? Come on!
so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. relative. there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line. "Wings and radar [sic]" are minor adaptations? What can possibly count as a "non-minor" adaptation then? If you're happy with bats, all 1100 species of them, evolving from rats in just 4000 years, and evolving sonar and flight in that time what on earth is the limit that stops evolution explaining the rest of life's diversity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology. without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails. But this is simply not true. The strongest evidence for Evolution is all drawn from living species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line. Obviously since the k-t line was about 65,000,000 years ago. The common ancestor between the primate, rodent lagomorph line and the Laurasiatherians was about 40,000,000 years ago. from the same book, The Ancestor's Tail 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I don't see you even pretending to try to understand and address what people are saying. You're like an information black hole. Information goes in, nothing comes out.
While you were away Kaichos Man paid a brief visit to this thread. See his two posts beginning at Message 220 to witness that it is possible for a creationist to understand the concept of vestigiality. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Robert Byers writes:
in fact in order to discover species flowing into/out of each other over time is founded not on biology but presumptions that geology shows this time too have taken place. It's based, in part, on biological observations of time-ordered, preserved remains. The time-ordering part is (I suppose) geology if we are talking about fossils, the observations of structure etc. are biology.
there is not biological evidence for evolution. This is a flaw in the thinking. Perhaps you could ellaborate and explain the flaw through (perhaps) commonly used examples of evidence for evolution ... just a thought. the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology.
The biological claim is made on biological remains, and, indeed, on living species. Darwin developed the core of his ideas from observations of living creatures rather than any analysis of fossil remnains. without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails.
Evolution does not require there to be a long time invovled (necessarily) ... although there seems to have been. Equally to arbitraily dispute the whole field of Geology without at least a little evidence would be fool hardy. The observation of the casts of bodies is not demonstrating evolution .They could easily be seen as simply a diverse speciation. Like today in the amazon or with seals or cichlid fishes. 'Diverse Speciation'? Ah. So are you accepting 'speciation' but rejecting 'evolution' i.e. accepting that species change over time, but rejecting the idea that (say) some forms of reptilian could have (over many generations) become (say) some form of mammal? In studying the fossils there is very little biology going on.
Depends what attribute of the fossil you are studying. If you are studying the rock itself -- that's geology. If you are study the structures captured in the rock, and those structures are of biological origin, the you are studying biology. Biology is about living/or recently living tissue and delicate instruments to handle it.
I disagree. Biology is the study of living things, and it matters little how long they have been dead for. In what sense is a two-hour old carcass different from a 2 million year old one except for level of decay and how bad it smells? Pick axes and dynamite ain't biology.
I haven't seen many fossil hunters using pck axes and dynamite (well not recently anyway) -- too much paperwork nowadays
The extraction of the fossils is not anything to do with how/why they are studied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: bluescat48 writes: Primates, Rodentia & Lagomorpha are in one sub class whereas Bats (2 orders) Megachiroptera & Microchiroptera together with the Insectivora, Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Carnivora & Pholidota are in the subclass Lauasiatheria This creationist sees bats as just rodents... Bluescat is right, Robert: bats are more closely related to horses, tigers, whales and pangolins than to rodents. You can visualize bats however you want, but reality is stubbornly defying your opinion right now. Don't let that stop you, though: maybe, if you're insistent enough, reality will eventually give in to the infallible logic of your demands and make bats into flying rodents. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024