Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
189 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 187 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 241 of 1384 (849869)
03-24-2019 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tanypteryx
03-20-2019 12:30 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ ...

Gosh, your reading comprehension needs a boost.


Sorry, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say, because you make use of "the evolutionary history ... recent common ancestors ... species history" of these insects and because you use "evolutionary processes and mechanisms", this means the theory of evolution has proven useful in your work? If so, you sure suffering a delusion.

"none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, p. 79.

Wow indeed. I realize you didn't know this, but a scientific theory is based on the facts we know, not speculations, wishes, or beliefs.

As a result of my post (#182), I notice you changed your tune. You've gone from

(post 165)"The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution" (which is incorrect - ToE says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection. To make matters worse, you are implying that a mere collection of facts adds up to a scientific theory, which is nonsense)

to

"a scientific theory is based on the facts we know" (which is correct).

I'm glad I could teach you something.

Dredge writes:

Did you know that there exist professors of biology who are YECs? So much for the importance of evolutionary theory in biology!


Tanypteryx writes:

Can you name any? And where do they teach?


Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology,
Lane P. Lester, Professor of Biology.

I don't know where they teach.

I feel sorry for their students if they try to work in any biological fields.

Why? The fact that YECs can become professors of biology proves that the theory of evolution is irrelevant and useless to biology. What is the point of teaching students useless information?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-20-2019 12:30 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 3:02 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 242 of 1384 (849870)
03-24-2019 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Tangle
03-21-2019 3:50 AM


Tangle writes:

A scientific theory is not an idea, a hunch and an hoc explanation, it's a expanation of all known facts. As such, it's status is higher than pure facts. The ToE has stood for 150 years.


Hang on, let me get this straight ... you believe that a scientific theory - which could be wrong or could be changed at any time - has a higher status than pure facts, which are accepted as universal, demonstrable constants and truths and are often practically useful? And your proffer the completely useless ToE as a prime example of this "higher status"?

Please excuse me while I laugh - a lot! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh boy, only an evolutionist could come up with something that funny! Thank you!

he ToE has stood for 150 years. Not only is it the best explanation of the facts, it's the only naturalistic explanation of them.

I agree that it is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation of the facts ... for what it's worth ... which is nothing ... mainly because ToE is a very poor explanation of the fossil record.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2019 3:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 4:42 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 243 of 1384 (849871)
03-24-2019 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by edge
03-21-2019 11:05 AM


edge writes:

You doubt the ToE?


Yes - ToE cannot account for the fossil record.

You got this straight from your favorite YEC websites, yes?

No, I got it from the opinions of experts. For example,

"The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species - from their initial appearance until their extinction - has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin, who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favoured explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of this 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false." - Wikipedia, "Punctuated Equilibrium"

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium".

"Darwins argument (of a very incomplete fossil record) still persists as the favoured escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly ... I wish only to point out that (gradualism) was never 'seen' in the rocks."

"In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational".

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disapppear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" - The Panda's Thumb.

Dawkins says, "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by edge, posted 03-21-2019 11:05 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 03-24-2019 10:16 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-24-2019 11:34 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 244 of 1384 (849872)
03-24-2019 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taq
03-21-2019 5:28 PM


Re: Name one.
Taq writes:

The practical use for the theory of evolution is in explaining how species changed over time.


An explanation for how species changed over time is in itself not a practical use. An explanation is just someone talking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 03-21-2019 5:28 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 245 of 1384 (849873)
03-24-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tangle
03-21-2019 4:50 AM


Tangle writes:

The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it.

1. What are "the principles of evolution"? They are simply the mechanisms of evolution - such as mutations and natural selection - which are observable and demonstrable facts. Are you trying to tell me that these facts wouldn't exist and stand alone as facts without the theory of evolution?

2. The terms, "principles of evolution" and "the theory of evolution" are not interchangable as they are fundamentally different things. The "principles of evolution" are facts and the "theory of evolution" is simply an idea. So your claim that the practical uses for "evolutionary principles" you quoted (in post 183) are the same as practical uses for the "theory of evolution" is incorrect.

Dictionary definition of "theory" (from my iPad) - "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: (for example) Darwin's theory of evolution."

"none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, p. 79.

And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution.

Depending on the context, the word "evolution" can refer to the theory of evolution or it can refer to the principles/mechanisms of evolution. If the latter, then of course there are many practical uses for "evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2019 4:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 4:56 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 246 of 1384 (849874)
03-24-2019 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
03-22-2019 3:23 AM


Tangle writes:

Dredge writes:

On second thougths, I might be barking up the wrong tree here


On third thoughts, I recant that statement, which was influenced by the livescience.com definiton of "the theory of evolution" that I mentioned - in my haste I didn't read it in full (somone with a fragile, egg-shell mind is unfortunately prone to such mistakes). The part I missed says,

"The theory (of evolution) has two main points ... All life on Earth is connected and related to each other ... and this diversity of life is a product of modifications of populations by natural selection ... (which is) supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology".

In other words, according to this definition, "since all life on Earth is connected and related to each other", the theory of evolution cannot be separated from the concept that all life on earth evolved from LUCA. Therefore. if there is no practical use for the concept of LUCA, there is no practical use for the theory of evolution.

"Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists."

This quote is partly true and partly false:
It is TRUE that there are many practical applications for "evolutionary biology".
It is TRUE that a knowledge of the mechanisms by which "organisms evolve through natural selection" has provided many practical applications.

It is NOT TRUE that "the theory of evolution" has provided practical applications.

Btw, thank you for going to the trouble of providing the scientific information contained in your post.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2019 3:23 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 5:12 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 247 of 1384 (849875)
03-24-2019 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by AZPaul3
03-22-2019 10:36 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Understanding the internet and google, how they work, from where their data flows, this is not at all surprising. There are a lot of useless uninformed treatments in such a list of results.


Actually, it isn't at all surprising: There are no practical uses for ToE, which why one cannot find any "practical uses for the theory of evolution" on the 'net.
When you find a scientific article or paper that describes practical uses for "the theory of evolution", wake me up.

I get the impression you don't even look at the results. You scan the titles, scan a few words looking for a bone to pick, but eschew the scholastic rigor of understanding the data and the concepts the various sources, in concert, seek to convey.

You're correct to certain extent - some articles or papers I come across are too technical for my fragile, egg-shell mind to digest. So in such cases I simply try and get the overall gist of what is being presented.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2019 10:36 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 248 of 1384 (849876)
03-24-2019 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Stile
03-22-2019 11:30 AM


Stile writes:

You're hilarious ... here were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:
"Medicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.

Let's see now ... the quotes you so kindly supplied indicates there are practical medical uses relating to "how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection ... mutations within the pathogen genome ... environmental pressure (ie, antibiotic action) ... changes that have occured during (an) organism's evolution ... genes ... human genetic disorders". All these items involve no more observable, demonstrable FACTS. Please point out the evolutionary theory you are claiming, as I can't see any.

Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.

* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Stile, posted 03-22-2019 11:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 5:20 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2019 1:49 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 262 by Stile, posted 03-25-2019 8:48 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 263 by NosyNed, posted 03-25-2019 10:04 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 274 by vimesey, posted 03-26-2019 5:38 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 249 of 1384 (849877)
03-24-2019 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2019 1:24 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA


Not true. There are in fact millions of people in the world who believe that all life on earth evolved from UCA.
But apparently it's more scientific to believe that all life on earth evolved from LUCA.

You have no credibility.

You may be the only person on this website who doesn't believe I should should be awarded three honorary doctorates in evolutionary biology - one from Harvard, one from MIT and one from Oxford.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2019 1:24 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 3:43 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 260 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-24-2019 8:02 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 250 of 1384 (849878)
03-24-2019 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Dredge
03-24-2019 2:50 AM


Dredge writes:

Hang on, let me get this straight ... you believe that a scientific theory - which could be wrong or could be changed at any time - has a higher status than pure facts, which are accepted as universal, demonstrable constants and truths and are often practically useful? And your proffer the completely useless ToE as a prime example of this "higher status"?

Yes. That's because theory explain facts. A single fossilised bone found in a landslip adds another fact to the pile of information that is the theory. Facts are basic data points, theories build information from them.

Please excuse me while I laugh - a lot! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh boy, only an evolutionist could come up with something that funny! Thank you!

I see I'm talking to a child.

Theory is a general concept applied across all science, it is not specific the evolutionary theory. Are all scientific theories wrong now too?

Still no answer about whether your objection to the ToE is because it contradicts your religious beliefs. Why so shy? Are you ashamed of the 'fact'.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 2:50 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:15 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 251 of 1384 (849879)
03-24-2019 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:11 AM


Dredge writes:

2. The terms, "principles of evolution" and "the theory of evolution" are not interchangable as they are fundamentally different things. The "principles of evolution" are facts and the "theory of evolution" is simply an idea. So your claim that the practical uses for "evolutionary principles" you quoted (in post 183) are the same as practical uses for the "theory of evolution" is incorrect.

The principles of evolution are derived from the theory. They're ideas drawn from it with general use. I'm pleased that you accept them as facts. (But I suspect that you'll change your mind when/if you finally understand what you're saying.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:11 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:17 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 252 of 1384 (849880)
03-24-2019 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:24 AM


Dredge writes:

On third thoughts, I recant that statement,

In fact, I think you simply realised the consequences of what you'd just said and now have to backtrack.

The part I missed says,
"The theory (of evolution) has two main points ... All life on Earth is connected and related to each other ... and this diversity of life is a product of modifications of populations by natural selection ... (which is) supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology".

In other words, according to this definition, "since all life on Earth is connected and related to each other", the theory of evolution cannot be separated from the concept that all life on earth evolved from LUCA.

Ok, so now you've gone from UCA to LUCA, that's not a small change you know? I doubt that you understand the point but we'll let it go for now.

Of course course the ToE and LUCA are linked, you keep being told that the *principle* of common ancestry is a necessary conclusion of the ToE.

Therefore. if there is no practical use for the concept of LUCA, there is no practical use for the theory of evolution.

That's the worst logic error I've seen for a while. Can you see why?

Btw, thank you for going to the trouble of providing the scientific information contained in your post.

You're welcome, it's just a pity that it was wasted on you.

Still no answer to my question about whether your objsection to the ToE is based on a presumed contradiction of your religious beliefs.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:24 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:29 AM Tangle has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5807
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 253 of 1384 (849886)
03-24-2019 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:01 AM


None of those support the contention that the ToE cannot explain the fossil record. They are about the details of the explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:01 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 254 of 1384 (849888)
03-24-2019 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:01 AM


Yes - ToE cannot account for the fossil record.

Just to be clear, I use the term 'explain' rather than 'account for'.

No, I got it from the opinions of experts. For example,
"The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species - from their initial appearance until their extinction - has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin, who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favoured explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of this 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false." - Wikipedia, "Punctuated Equilibrium"

Okay, so you reference a statement from Darwin made 175 years ago.

That's convincing.

Have you ever entertained the notion that we might have learned a few things since then?

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium".

Why didn't they say that "evolution is virtually non-existent in the fossil record" and not 'gradualism'?

AFAICS, you didn't claim that 'gradualism does not explain the fossil record', did you?

So, why did Gould and Eldredge reamain confident of the theory of evolution after discovering that gradualism is not present in the fossil record?

"Darwins argument (of a very incomplete fossil record) still persists as the favoured escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly ... I wish only to point out that (gradualism) was never 'seen' in the rocks."

Again, who cares? We are discussing evolution as an explanation for the fossil record, not gradualism.

"In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational".

Please document starfish in the Cambrian. According to UCMP (https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html), "The more familiar starfish, brittle stars, and sea urchins had not yet evolved, ...".

My impression is that someone is lying to you and that leaves some YEC website as a prime suspect.

And really, do you think that these primitive worms and 'starfish' and snails looked anything like the modern counterparts?

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disapppear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" - The Panda's Thumb.

Okaaaay ....

A quote from a band of rabid anti-evolutionists shows that evolution does not explain the fossil record.

Sure they do.[/sarc] Maybe you can explain the explanation, yes?

And you do realize that in the geological record, suddenness can occur over millions of years, do you not? The fact is that fossil communities evolved over time. What is your explanation?

Dawkins says, "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229

And the problem is?

Even Darwin understood that there were gaps and he even proposed an explanation that holds water today.

I also refer you to the older precursors to Cambrian fauna in the Proterozoic known as the Ediacaran Fauna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota).

Evolution explains all of this.

So, what have you got?

Your assertion that evolution does not explain the fossil record is failing. And even more interesting would be your alternative to evolution.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:01 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by JonF, posted 03-24-2019 12:40 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 287 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 AM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5807
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 255 of 1384 (849889)
03-24-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
03-24-2019 11:34 AM


The Panda's Thumb is a strongly pro-evolution site. But that quote does not appear on that site. It appears to be fr Gould. My phone is almost dead so I can't chase it further now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-24-2019 11:34 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:59 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020