Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?

Sonic, This post addressed your concerns, I believe.Mark

Sonic, Specifically, what you agreed to was this, So when Darwin hypothesised large scale evolution, & made predictions based upon future discoveries in the fossil record, why is this not evidence? Are you deliberately being obtuse? You can't claim predictions are evidence, but not when it supports macroevolution. Neither would I. But it's irrelevant. The point is that predictions were made on the basis of future discoveries. The transitionals were discovered after Darwin (& Lamarck et al.) hypothesised large scale evolution. No, I don't. You are back to that ridiculous position in which no evidence is admissible to support the existence of electrons unless electrons are proven. Ergo, elecrons don't exist, & nor can they ever be shown to. Utter nonsense.And science doesn't "prove" anything beyond a doubt. It shows things to be supported to such a high degree that to withhold consent is unreasonable. If 2.04*10^90 : 1 isn't proven within reasonable doubt, then you are a lost cause.2,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of the results being due to chance rather than evolution, above & beyond the statistical chance of random congruence occurring.This as proven as it gets in science. What you "feel" is irrelevant subjectivism. Cladistics has been tested on known phylogenies & it w-o-r-k-s.Furthermore, you don't understand what's at work here. The evolutionary assumption implicitly associated with cladograms is being tested. The results are very, very positive. The results, if evolution hadn't happened would be a low level of congruence. There would be a statistical change of congruence, of course (which I believe is your objection), but this can be calculated (& I did). The congruence is not low, it is very good indeed, & the chances against all those cladograms corrobrating with the fossil record if evolution were false is staggering. It is similar to the number of fundamental particles in the universe : 1.If you still "feel" that macroevolution hadn't occurred, then you are doing so against mind boggling evidence.Let me put it another way, the chance that the similarites are due to random chance rather than indicators of relatedness is 2,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1. We haven't even factored in all the supporting embryological, morphological & genetic atavistic data, all of which tells the same story. You must live in a world of amazing coincidences, Sonic.Mark added some spaces to fix page width - The Queen------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-30-2003]

Sonic, It's not supposed to be, There is no reason why all characters should evolve at the same rate. It's called mosaic evolution. Characters don't all smoothly evolve in microevolution, why should they in macroevolution?Mark

Sonic, Even if you remove the dating methods you are left with a relative ordering that falsifies the creation account.Mark

Sonic, Stop right there. You have dodged the point again, which was that intermediate & transitional fossils are evidence of evolution. You agreed AGAIN to my statement above, & STILL deny transitionals are evidence of the ToE, despite them being predicted. You agree borne out predictions are evidence, but evoke special pleading when it comes to the ToE & macroevolution. This is hypocritical. Correct, it is evidence that he was right. Not unequivocal in itself, but evidence nonetheless.You have absolutely NO reason to expect more transitions than are currently in collections. Your rejection of the FACT that fossils can be inferred to be transitionals is therefore spurious. Make no mistake, if you made predictions & they were subsequently discovered to be true, you would have evidence.Evidence doesn't provide a truth/false statement about a theory. It reduces the tentativity for the hypothesis in question. And when the evidence corroborates with other evidence the tentativity is reduced a lot. It means that there is evidence of the ToE. The tentativity of the theory is lowered. ....They were subsequently discovered & provided evidence for Darwin's theory, obviously. You forget the other evidence that the ToE is based upon. Remember the power of corroborative evidence? You missed the point completely.2.04*10^90 : 1 are the odds that you are wrong. It represents the odds against the "similarities" lining up pure chance, & being due to common descent. Morphological & genetic "similarities" are being tested to see if there is a signal based upon relationships. As you can see, there is a clear signal present showing common descent is responsible for the similarities.The similarites & forms "morph" in cladograms over time, & match the geological record. Coincidence? 2.04*10^90 : 1 says no, no , NO!!! It screams common descent from the rooftops.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic, But you agreed that the fossil record was incomplete? Are you now retracting?Mark

Sonic, Glad I could help. I have to say it's been a great pleasure debating with you. Although I sense you want to dismiss evidence, I also sense that you want to be logical & consistent at the same time. You obviously understand that you can't have both & have taken the path to the light in going with logic, reason, & evidence. Changing your worldview can't be an easy thing to do, so I guess it's forgivable to encounter some resistance to it. Talk OriginsI'm sure you've seen this site before, but read it again. This time don't look at the evidences as singular entities. Look at them one at a time & in your head "multiply" them together (as corroborating facts should be). Then ask yourself, what are the chances that all of this, all of the corroboration between palaeontology, stratigraphy, genetics, cladistics, molecular biology, embryology, morphology etc is due to anything else but evolution? The Tree of LifeClick on, in this order, the root of the tree, eukaryotes, animals, bilateria, deuterostoma, chordata, craniata, vertebrata, gnathostoma, sarcopterygii, terrestrial vertebrates, synapsida, therapsida, mammalia, eutheria, primates, catarrhini, hominidae, homo, Homo sapiens.That's just walking up one branch of the tree of life, all of which is inferred independantly by cladistics, all of which is corroborated by the stratigraphic order of appearance, & again confirmed by radiometric dating.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

zephyr,Sorry mate, I missed your question & only noticed it when I saw Ipetrich's post.Mark

God bless Pubmed!

Nobody,Molecular phylogenetics uses sequence data, it matters not a jot whether the loci are neutral or have been subject to drift.Mark

Nobody,Sequence data is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA, or amino acids in proteins. Both are essentially chains.Mark

Nobody,Yup, amino acid sequences.Mark

NoBody,I've started a new topic hereMark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall