|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As the title suggests, Punctuated Equilibria is Evolution, and that is what Eliyahu tries to avoid. ... Even when the evidence is right in front of him as in Message 235:
quote: We could also talk about horse evolution: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
quote: That is basically the amount of evolutionary difference between punctuation events where we see the new genera (not species btw) "appear suddenly" while the old genera still exists and then lasting longer in later strata. So does Eliyahu say there is no evolutionary relationship between these genera? ... and what would be the basis for that assertion? And that is just the start of the horses ... 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
More importantly, how do these fossils, or any fossils for that matter, disprove evolution? Not a problem for people that understand what evolution is in biological terms rather than in creationist fantasy. It appears that Eliyahoo thinks that evolution is either very very slow (his evolution = gradualism statement) or very very fast (his evolve a hamster from a cat statement) ... and thus it is very evident that he doesn't understand the biology of evolutionary processes (and is unwilling to learn, like most creationists).
From what I have seen, Eliyahu has confused the absence of evidence with evidence that disproves a hypothesis. Using the forensic evidence analogy again, if we don't find the suspect's fingerprints at the crime scene it does not prove that the suspect is innocent. However, finding someone else's fingerprints would lead us down the road of disproving the prosecution's case. He has confused many things with apparent completely careless abandon, things that even grade school education should have covered (at least here in the US).
In the case of fossils, the fossils we do have do not disprove evolution. In fact, all of the fossils we have support the theory.What we do not have is a fossil that disproves evolution. And he is also confused about "proof" and science and basic logic, and seems to think that if a theory is not proven by the evidence then it is disproven ... a rather uncredible leap of faith. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Every reproductive event containing evolution is just equivocation with the term, "evolution", in that way you can claim adaptation, a change in allele frequencies in gene pools, is the event of evolution. Which it is by the definition of the process of evolution:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. It is not equivocation Mike, rather it is distinguishing between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution. Equivocation would try to confuse the two.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Nice to see you again. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Wrong. When there is a limited number of bases, then there is a limited number of ways in which you can recombine them. In any one fixed length. Insertions change the lengths, result: unlimited. Try again: where are the limitations?
That's one thing I don't see there. Please post it here. So you didn't read the article you referenced. One simple method is duplication of an existing gene and then mutations to alter it to new use while the original continues the original use. Note this also adds to the overall length and complexity of the DNA ...
And HOW do you think they evolve?? By modification of existing traits via mutation and selection. I provided a sample in Message 63:
quote: That's the question. Only for those undereducated in evolution or in denial of the evidence. Edited by RAZD, : colorby 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And the undeniable fact still remains that the fossil record, is not just in agreement with, but is the very proof of evolution and not just rebuffs but totally shreds your genesis myth. Indeed, there is even a thread on that topic: Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process. Fossils are a test of the theory of evolution, each new find has the potential to challenge the theory and none have. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm sure that you have been taken to task on this quote mine before but, just for the record, I will refer you to a more complete quote from Stanley:
quote: quote: And he was not saying that evolution did not occur, nor was not evident in the fossil record, but that there was stasis observed in many species, that parent species continued to exist after daughter species appeared, and he was comparing punk-eek to gradualism. None of this disproves evolution. Note that this is also the location and timing for the Pelycodus fossil transitions mentioned in Msg 5: falsification by evidence: the fossil record does show evolution:
quote: Probably a wast of time, ... Seeing as he has continued to repeat falsified claims since the beginning of this thread with no admission or allowance of being invalidated he is either trolling or incapable of understanding falsification. So yeah, a waste of time as far as trying to educate him on the facts and the evidence of reality. But the more he continues the more he shows how bankrupt this creationist type of argument is when dealing with reality. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But then, Eli seems also to ignore the tiny detail that PE is evolution. And that gaps in the fossil record don't invalidate evolution. For instance, Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct 66 million years ago (during the Cretaceous—Paleogene extinction event), and then modern species were found, the first in 1938 off the east coast of South Africa, and a second species more recently in the Indian Ocean off the shores of Indonesia. Did this group of fishes go extinct and then were re-created? Or is there a 65 million year gap in the fossil record? Have they been in stasis for 65 million years? Nope, the living species are not the same as the prehistoric species -- they have evolved: Coelacanth - Wikipedia
quote: So slow phyletic evolution over 65 million years ... a long period with little significant change. The same can be said for other "living fossils" ... such as crocodilians. Stasis does not mean no evolution, it means selection is towards conservation rather than change, and without significant change in the ecology there is no selection pressure for significant change. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Evolution and Society
An historical perspective on the development of the science of evolution ... and how ideas changed as information became available, including how Christian thinking was involved ...
Lecture 9 PDF quote: The problem with fossils and creationist thinking is that this law holds for all fossils found to date, regardless of whether or not precise "smoking gun" intermediates are found for new species, ... and creationism just does not explain why this should be so. Evolution explains it.
Wallace’s line" quote: The problem with biogeography and creationist thinking is that this geographic distribution applies to living species as well as all fossils found to date ... and creationism just does not explain why this should be so. Evolution explains it. Edited by RAZD, : added wallaceaby 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Am I the only one that thinks this behaviour counter-productive to real discussion?? No, because the discussion goes on without him. His lack of response shows how empty his argument is, while the plethora of responses on so many levels demonstrates the depth of information, evidence and facts that support the theory of evolution in so many different ways. The main audience here is the lurkers, particularly anyone with any lingering doubts about the power of evolution to explain the evidence at every turn. 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The "thesis" presented by Eliyahu was essentially three fold: first that major players in the field of evolution and paleontology said that the fossil record showed stasis, second that species appeared suddenly in a manner consistent with creation, and third that the quotes used disproved evolution.
None of these claims are true representations of what the fossil record shows. First: stasis. Stasis is a stage in evolution that occurs when there is no selection pressure to change, and the selection pressure then acts to keep the population phenotypes at their average positions. This occurs often when ecologies are stable, but even then evolution is not stalled. One can look at any breeding population and see evolution in process in the mix of variations around those median positions: the population is not monoclonal. Nor is stasis necessarily a result - there is evidence of gradual evolution over 65 million years in the foraminifera fossil record, and almost complete record showing variation over time and speciation events. Second: sudden appearance\creation. Whenever there is a complete record there is no sudden appearance of new species, rather the existing species are seen to branch into new species. When we see the appearance of a new species, there are two factors to note:
We can see how this gap can give the appearance of sudden creation when we look at the fossil record of the Pelycodus: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html
quote: If the fossils at the point of divergence were missing the you would have the sudden appearance of N.Nuniensis beside the existing Pelycodus populations. This second point was made by Wallace:
quote: If such sudden appearance were consistent with creation, then we must needs conclude that the creator was incompetent or dissatisfied with the results and had to keep tinkering and tinkering and tinkering: not a conclusion that most creationists would be comfortable with, imho. Third, quote mines and proof. When each of the quotes used are evaluated in detail by reference to the original papers, it is clear that the authors do not consider stasis to be evidence that evolution does not occur, just that it occurs at different rates at different times. This is especially true when one looks at other articles than the ones used for quote mines:
quote: And there is a whole "quote mine project" that discusses the misuse of quoted statements like those used by Eliyahu here, many of which are listed, and several showing that the copied "quotes" included typos from creationist sites, demonstrating that these quotes are not original with Eliyahu. The evidence we have shows that fossils do support evolution (see Message 5 for more on foraminifera and pelycodus examples), nor does a gap show lack of evolution (see Message 329 and the large gap in the coelacanth record but evolution still occurred). This alone invalidates the thesis, however there is a final element involved here: The Theory of Evolution is not based on the fossil record, it is based on the observation of the diversity of life in the world as we know it, the observation that the process of evolution and the process of speciation occur, they have been observed, and they are facts:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. Because such phyletic change in breeding populations is a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be a new species is a subjective observation, and this is frequently called arbitrary speciation.
The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other. The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. The fossil record is a test of this theory, and thus to use it to disprove the theory one needs to show that fossils contradict the theory, that the fossils cannot be explained by the above processes. Gaps in the fossil record do not do this. New species arising next to existing closely related species, in both time and location, do not do this. The genetic record is another test of this theory, and the fact remains that it is consilient with the fossil record with the formation of nested hierarchies demonstrating how species are related. The argument made by Eliyahu was not supported by any evidence other than blind assertions and copious quote mines that failed to demonstrate his thesis when looked at in detail. The thesis made by Eliyahu is disproven both by copious fossil evidence and by the authors of the quotes when the details of their articles are reviewed. Edited by RAZD, : ..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