|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Origin of Novelty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
What? No! Did you read the article? Ok I have read it, yes its claws and wingspan are slightly different to modern bats, and I would also agree with the expected differences from a non-flying mammal. The problem though is that the Palaeochiropteryx is actually dated earlier than the Onychonycteris, which shows that the Onychonycteris was not necessarily transitional, but contemporary with other bat species that also preceded it. I am impressed, but it would be more convincing if it was the first bat fossil instead of a subsequent one. Of course the creationist explanation is that there was a lot more diversity, and diversity itself does not prove an evolutionary process to create diversity. And also I'm not too sure about their "limb ratio" claims, when I look at for example the California leaf-nosed bat , I see the same short-wing to long hind-leg ratio as in this fossil. But if evolution managed to find more of these fossils in expected transitional forms from the logical common ancestor, and dated in the correct sequence (unlike this fossil), it would strengthen the theoretical basis of evolution. I can't speak for other creationists, but I would raise an eyebrow if fossils like these, but in the correct transitional order, kept showing up across many species and taxa. The lack of these transitions, and yet the sheer number of "before and after" fossils without transitions between them, is what creates the doubt. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Convergence times for both the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA are well beyond the 6,000 year mark. Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth ? Give me figures, not sweeping statements. In what manner does "Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The problem though is that the Palaeochiropteryx is actually dated earlier than the Onychonycteris, You sure?
quote: quote: .
But if evolution managed to find more of these fossils in expected transitional forms from the logical common ancestor, and dated in the correct sequence (unlike this fossil), it would strengthen the theoretical basis of evolution. Have you looked into horses?
I can't speak for other creationists, but I would raise an eyebrow if fossils like these, but in the correct transitional order, kept showing up across many species and taxa. Whales is another good one:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Give me figures, not sweeping statements. In what manner does "Human variation in these two parts of the genome already falsify a 6,000 year old Earth"? "We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion ofthe Y chromosome phylogenetic tree.We sequenced ~240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00.We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval 237—581 kya)." http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf "A number of sequences (13%) were highly divergent and coalesced on the "mitochondrial Eve" in Africans. The remaining sequences also ultimately coalesced on this sequence but fell into four major clusters whose starlike phylogenies testify to demographic expansions. The oldest of these African expansions dates to approximately 60,000-80,000 years ago."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
The problem though is that the Palaeochiropteryx is actually dated earlier than the Onychonycteris, which shows that the Onychonycteris was not necessarily transitional, but contemporary with other bat species that also preceded it. Transitional does not mean ancestral. The platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though the platypus is not ancestral to modern placental mammals.
But if evolution managed to find more of these fossils . . . Theories don't dig up fossils. Humans do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Fossils do not contain DNA. Whatever definition we give for a transitional fossil, it has nothing to do with DNA or the lack of it. Criticising fossils for a lack of DNA is like criticising the Gospels for not having photo's of Jesus. It has everything to do with DNA. In just the same way that a tasmanian wolf is related to marsupials and not real wolves, two fossils could be vastly different in genotype and deceptively similar in phenotype. They can therefore be mistaken as transitional. Or two fossils could be contemporary from a common ancestor, and yet because of a certain feature, mistaken for a transition. For example if we find a gemsbok fossil above a steenbok fossil, it would be so easy to conclude antelope are getting larger with longer horns. If however they are found to be contemporary, then we know these are two separate species, and are not transitions. It is impossible to conclude any transitional sequence from fossils without DNA analysis.
Even if I were to show you two species that share DNA, would you accept this as evidence for evolution? No you would not. It is deeply dishonest of you to harp at me for a lack of DNA evidence, when you routinely dismiss the DNA evidence that does exist. Specifically, what are you referring to here? I hope you built your case logically because I have no obligation to accept an illogical argument.
Isn't it? In your latest reply you claim that it's impossible. Make your damn mind up. If there is a clear sequence of fossils with gradually changing features, in the correct date order, this would help evolution's case. If such sequences were regularly found across many species, this would strengthen evolution's case. No one sequence would prove anything, but a case could be building to add strength to evolution. Instead the opposite is happening, more and more modern species are being shown to exist in nearly identical form in ages past, so the fossil record increasingly points to creationism.
Huh? But you just said that it's impossible to recognise a transitional fossil, so how can you say whether there is a lack or not? Your habit of making shit up as you go along has led you into a contradiction; either there is a way to recognise transitional fossils and they turn out to be lacking or there is no way to recognise transitional fossils and you have no idea how many there are. You don't get to have it both ways, so which is it? But even after all of this, I notice that you have still not answered my question. You have told me that there is "nothing that can prove a genuine transitional fossil". Well that's not really what I'm asking for. No-one claims to be able to prove that a fossil fits into a particular transition or not; science doesn't work on "proof". I asked you what a genuine transitional fossil would look like, what characteristics it would have. You refuse to answer. A less charitable poster than I might suspect that haven't actually given the matter the slightest thought, or that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not mean like that, so I'll ask again; what would a genuine transitional fossil look like? What characteristics would it have to fulfil for us to begin to recognise it as transitional? Seriously mindspawn, if you are unable to answer that simple question, you have no business commenting on the subject of the fossil record. Answer the question, or stop making claims about things you can't even define. I was already clear, you cannot prove any particular transitional fossil. Its impossible EVER to know if there is a GENUINE transitional fossil without DNA analysis. So its impossible to prove. If evolutionists manage to indicate transitions through many sequentially dated sequences of gradually changing features across many species, it would build a case for evolution. Instead the case for creation is building as modern species are increasingly found fossilized in ancient layers. The evidence is working against you. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Transitional does not mean ancestral. The platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though the platypus is not ancestral to modern placental mammals. You would need fossils that appear to be transitional between reptiles and the platypus, and between the platypus and mammals before you could make such a statement with any scientific backing. science is not guess work, its based on evidence.
Theories don't dig up fossils. Humans do. I have a sneaking suspicion that you missed my actual point here by focussing on my error in grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
It has everything to do with DNA. No, it doesn't. The transitional nature of fossils is determined solely by their morphology. It has nothing to do with DNA.
In just the same way that a tasmanian wolf is related to marsupials and not real wolves, two fossils could be vastly different in genotype and deceptively similar in phenotype. Actually, the anatomy of the tasmanian wolf is much more like other marsupials than it is placental wolves.
For example if we find a gemsbok fossil above a steenbok fossil, it would be so easy to conclude antelope are getting larger with longer horns. Anatomists use much more than the size of horns to determine if a fossil is intermediate.
If however they are found to be contemporary, then we know these are two separate species, and are not transitions. A monitor lizard, a platypus, and a human are all contemporary species. A platypus is transitional between the monitor lizard and modern humans. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Let me say this very clearly. If you found a mammal-bird transitional it would falsify evolution. Think about that for a second.
If there is a clear sequence of fossils with gradually changing features, in the correct date order, this would help evolution's case. We already have those. The hominid transitional fossil record shows exactly that.
I was already clear, you cannot prove any particular transitional fossil. The transitional nature of a fossil is a fact. A platypus is transitional. That is a fact. Again, you keep confusing ancestral with transitional. They are two different things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
You would need fossils that appear to be transitional between reptiles and the platypus, And we have those. http://cambrian.tripod.com/Reptile-Mammal
I have a sneaking suspicion that you missed my actual point here by focussing on my error in grammar. What percentage of fossil bearing strata have humans searched for fossils, by your estimation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
quote: But the are not deceptively similar in phenotype. Sure, they have 4 legs so are the "deceptively similar" to an elephant? They have forward facing eyes but are the "deceptively similar" to an owl? They are very, very dissimilar. From the bones out they are of different infraclasses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No, it doesn't. The transitional nature of fossils is determined solely by their morphology. It has nothing to do with DNA. Exactly! That is why it is so faulty, because DNA is not available, and so assumptions concerning transitions have to be based on morphology.If you take two fossils of similar time period, its impossible to really know if they are very similar yet contemporary , or are evolved ancestors. If the features fit evolutionary assumptions, then they are ASSUMED to be evolved, however that is as logical as saying an alligator evolved from a crocodile, or a crocodile evolved from an alligator, depending on which fossil survived the longest. The actual facts are unknown, evolution based on morphology is guesswork.
Actually, the anatomy of the tasmanian wolf is much more like other marsupials than it is placental wolves. This is true, nevertheless the point is that we cannot know for sure if there is an ancestral relationship rather than a contemporary relationship, or a lack of relationship, based on morphology alone.
We already have those. The hominid transitional fossil record shows exactly that. I already dealt with the Lucy joke, she has one human feature, and many ape features. Does this mean that we are descended from crabs, because we both have eyes, hahahahahaha. Just because Lucy, and gibbons and humans, have an upright Pelvis, does not make Lucy any more human than a crab is a human because we share eyesight and limbs.
The transitional nature of a fossil is a fact. A platypus is transitional. That is a fact. Again, you keep confusing ancestral with transitional. They are two different things.
Wikipedia:A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group The definition is very clear, I don't see why you are getting confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Exactly! That is why it is so faulty, because DNA is not available, Quite the opposite. It is entirely independent of DNA which makes it that much more useful. The fact that two INDEPENDENT data sets produce similar phylogenies indicates that evolution is true.
If you take two fossils of similar time period, its impossible to really know if they are very similar yet contemporary , or are evolved ancestors. If the features fit evolutionary assumptions, then they are ASSUMED to be evolved, however that is as logical as saying an alligator evolved from a crocodile, or a crocodile evolved from an alligator, depending on which fossil survived the longest. The actual facts are unknown, evolution based on morphology is guesswork. Then completely ignore the assumption that they evolved. Instead, organize them based on shared and derived features. Take that chart and then compare it to the a chart based on DNA. If the two match, then you have just confirmed evolution.
This is true, nevertheless the point is that we cannot know for sure if there is an ancestral relationship rather than a contemporary relationship, or a lack of relationship, based on morphology alone. Quite right. Therefore, the only reason that phylogenies based on morphology should match up with phylogenies based on DNA is if evolution is true.
I already dealt with the Lucy joke, she has one human feature, and many ape features. She has more than one human feature. Also, you are admitting that Lucy is transitional since she has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features.
Does this mean that we are descended from crabs, because we both have eyes, hahahahahaha. We don't have arthropod eyes. However, the features we do share with crabs is due to common ancestry.
Just because Lucy, and gibbons and humans, have an upright Pelvis, Lucy has a pelvis that is much more like a modern human pelvis than any other ape pelvis. This has already been shown to you. Why do you continue with such dishonest tactics?
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group That is with evolution added on top of the definition. A transitional fossil is still defined by a mixture of characteristics and nothing more. I don't see why you are getting confused. From the same article: "Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Palaeochiropteryx. I should have said that the first bat fossil is similar to the Palaeochiropteryx and is 55 million years old, older than the Onychonycteris. regarding the horse, I genarally avoid creationist websites, but this particular site had a lot of interesting points regarding the so-called horse transitions: http://www.bible.ca/...extbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm As for the whales, the last half of your chart could easily fit into a modern list of extant whales and dolphins, some with dorsal fins, and some without. The first half are land based. To assume some extinct creature with the lifestyle of a crocodile or sea-lion is an evolutionary "missing link" by placing it between a group of pictures of land creatures and a group of pictures of sea creatures is a big and unscientific jump of logic. Nevertheless the sequence has been succesfully created, and has a logical progression about it, so even though it concludes nothing, more of these sequences can make one think twice. But even more so, should evolutionists be thinking twice about their view every time we see "living fossils", modern organisms also reflected in ancient fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9971 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
To assume some extinct creature with the lifestyle of a crocodile or sea-lion is an evolutionary "missing link" by placing it between a group of pictures of land creatures and a group of pictures of sea creatures is a big and unscientific jump of logic. So you claim that evolution is not true because we lack transitional fossils. You claim that if evolution is true then we should see transitional fossils. We produce the transitional fossils. Now you claim that transitional fossils do not evidence evolution. Talk about shifting the goal posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No we do not. Disagree? Show me an example. You said we do not get examples of highly similar phenotypes but differing genotypes. There are a number of examples of this phenomenon in the following link:http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024