|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My 2 sense on a quick review ...
3. Mice brought from Europe to Madeira islands diverge into new species. ... Why is this anything more than the usual microevolution? It isn't ... ...except that this is accumulated microevolution over several generations, while the standard definition of microevolution is that it is change from one generation to the next (ie - one generation at a time). Likewise the standard definition of macroevolution is that it is microevolution over several generations. Speciation is generally considered the mark of macroevolution because it takes several generations for genetic isolation to develop.
... It reminds me of the Pod Mrcaru lizards example. ... Another case of microevolution occurring over several generations ("thirty years") ... ie macroevolution.
The concept of "speciation" based on inability to breed with the parent population is one of the biggests hoaxes going on in Evo Land. And yet here are two indisputable cases of genetic isolation developing between their daughter populations ... what are they if not different species, where a species is defined (by science not creationists) as a population capable of interbreeding? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
Give us a sequence of mutations and selections that could get us from a reptile to a mammal, or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. The generalities are just a way to hide the fact that it's impossible. Give me the genome of specific animals you want compared. Then find all the genetic differences. Then show that specific mutations from one to the next could not occur. You are the one making the claim that evolution cannot account for these differences. Please show how this is possible.
... or just a reptilian organ to a mammalian organ. ... The development of the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear is well documented in the fossil record. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
Give me the genome of specific animals you want compared.FAIL Then find all the genetic differences.FAIL Then show that specific mutations from one to the next could not occur.FAIL You are the one making the claim that evolution cannot account for these differences. Please show how this is possible.FAIL They could not occur in the right sequence and the right combination and stay in place for hundreds of millions of years while the whole transformation of the whole creature gets put together mutation by mutation. I believe this is simply intuitively obvious. But you guys are the scientists, you should already have made the case for getting from one to the other genetically. Obviously it's impossible. Annotated in orange ... epic failure to support your claim. All you have done is assert something without any evidence that it is correct. I could have predicted your response, so it does not surprise me that you avoided answering the questions ... because you don't have those answers. In fact most of your assertion is known falsehoods. We know from the spatial/temporal matrix of fossils in time and space that each step of the process occurred nearby (ie - stayed in place) while changing bit by bit (reptile jaw and ear, double hinged jaw, mammal jaw and ear where the hearing bones get disassociated from the jaw, bones changing size and shape along the way -- ie while the whole transformation of the whole creature gets put together). We also see that each intermediate is a living breathing species, perfectly capable of surviving, reproducing and evolving further.
What's "documented" in the fossil record is lots of different kinds of animals that lived before the Flood, including different varieties of animals with different organ designs. You are kidding yourself that there is any evidence of evolution there. ... Which ignores completely the arrangement of all known the fossils in their specific locations within the spatial/temporal matrix. Each intermediate fossil shows up within the spatial/temporal matrix of fossils at an intermediate time and in an intermediate location between parent and offspring fossils. Not one of them shows up out of place -- which should be the case if your claim was even partly true. For instance you don't find intermediate fossils for kangaroos in Greenland. According to your assertions there is nothing to prevent that random location - for this and every other instance of intermediate fossils. According to evolution it isn't possible because of descent, parent and offspring have to be close in time and space. You can't explain the sorting of the fossils along paths that show intermediate steps in that location of the world and nowhere else. Evolution does.
... And not having a clue how you'd get from one to the other genetically pretty much seals the case. But we do have a clue, we have many. They are called the genetic clues for the relationships between species, living today and living in the past. That you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have no idea how compelling that evidence is, because you are so ignorant of the actual evidence and choose to remain so. You have no idea of the reality you are up against in trying to invent a workable creationist explanation for all the evidence. In science we don't need to prove what happened, we just need to derive the best explanation of the evidence from the evidence. The ToE does that. Creation fails, over and over and over and over. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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:
|
Which is only because you assume evolution from one to the other. ... No Faith, as usual you have it backwards. We look at the fossils, and we look at their relative positions in the spatial/temporal matrix. And we ask: what is the best explanation for this group of fossils that are close in time and close in geographical distribution? Can Creation/Flood concepts explain this? No. Can Evolutionary processes explain this? Yes. The changes from one population to the next are minor and well within observed changes in other species, there is time enough for these changes to take place, and they are located within the ecological bounds of each other. None of the changes are impossible creatures. You have no idea how powerful a tool the spatial/temporal matrix is and has been in showing the paths of evolution. With this tool each fossil is like a footprint on a path, not directly connected but located close enough in time and space for them to happen, just as you could trace footprints across the US to connect a person's locations on each coast.
... Which means you don't have to try to explain how it happened genetically, you just "know" from the fossil record that it did. We don't have to try to explain how it happened genetically because the fossils provide a complete story, but we also know from the genetics and common ancestry that this is also in the right place at the right time for the development of the mammal genetics. One set of evidence reinforces the other.
... Which I believe is the fallacy called Begging the Question. As a result, of course, you will never have to face the fact that genetically it is impossible. No, that would be your flood modeling fiascos, and your insistence that it is impossible, while you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support such assertions. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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 chimp versus the human foot are not just a matter of rearranging the exact same parts(..) Yes they are. Of course they are. I'm not sure how to respond to such an odd statement except with 'look' (note to avoid confusion that that's a right chimp foot and a left human foot):
We also have hominid feet that are intermediate between these two, many of them. Which is precisely what we would expect if they each evolved from a common ancestor, and as the hominid foot evolved for upright walking. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. From Message 20 in {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal quote: This is from 2008, and there have been several additional fossil discoveries since then that have filled in more intermediates. You will note that the big toe skeletal structure is still quite similar to the chimp foot, which leads to the concept that australopithicus was still adept at tree climbing. That foot was also compared with the laetoli footprints and it fit, with the footprints showing preferred bipedal walking. Again here are the chimp and human foot skeletons from Message 336 and "Little Foot"
Note the relative lengths of the heel bones, ~1/3rd the footprint, between the lengths seen in the chimp (~1/4th) and human feet (~1/2) of their footprints, while the toe bones shrink in size. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. We also have Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi")
quote: Again the heel bones show slightly more of the footprint than we see in chimps, but less than Austrlopithicus, ie intermediate. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. And we have Homo habilis feet
quote: Again, the amount of the footprint occupied by the tarsal bones would be intermediate between chimp and human (comparing the length of the middle metatarsil to the rest of the heel length). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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 I'm not even sure what the point of it all is supposed to be any more. The point is that there are intermediate hominid fossils that show intermediate development of the human foot compared to the chimp foot. As a way of actually measuring this we can compare the length of the middle metatarsal to the length of the heel portion of the foot from the end of the heel bone to the joint with the metatarsal, this is the foot pad bone structure and includes the tarsal bones, and is the main weight bearing area of the foot. This picture shows them labeled for reference:
Here you can see the middle tarsal bone is about 2/3rds of the heel/metatarsal pad length. In the human foot it is less than that, and in the chimp foot it is more than that. The three hominid feet that I found were various intermediate lengths between the chimp foot and the human foot with the older metatarsals being comparatively longer than the later ones. Clearly evolution can make these changes. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : finished Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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 going to get lambasted as usual of course, but those are not very convincing pictures of "intermediate" or hominid feet. When I see a bunch of bones laid out like that as if they all belong to the same skeleton though there is nothing to prove that they do, I take it as the usual evo wishfulness. Yes you are going to get lambasted for you blind denial and evasiveness.
You want to believe there is such a thing as a hominid, you want to believe there is such a thing as feet or any other body parts showing transitional forms between apes and humans, so you get a bunch of bones laid out that seem to show that. Perhaps you actually believe it, I won't say you don't, but I certainly don't believe it. Bones that all came from the same location in a carefully detailed archeological dig, in close proximity to one another. Bones that fit together at the joints just like your bones fit together at the joints. Bones not mixed with any other bones. You want to believe they were carefully selected from many different digs and artfully constructed into a fake skeleton, by people who are intentionally making a fraudulent skeleton, because you can't accept reality.
I thought maybe there's a genuine human foot somewhere that shows a somewhat splayed-out big toe that could suggest something transitional, ... What you expect has no bearing on reality. Anything between A and B is intermediate -- ie transitionsal.
... but all I see is the usual definitely ape type of big toe that's completely designed for grasping. A bit smaller a bit tighter but otherwise nothing intermediate at all. "A bit smaller a bit tighter" IS intermediate, as the human foot is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the chimp foot:
The changes in the relative lengths of the foot pad structure of heel bone and tarsal bones to the lengths of the metatarsal and the phalanges shows steady change from similar to chimp to similar to human. Each stage is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the previous stage. That's what intermediate means. Again it seems that you can't handle the truth. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
See if this image helps for bone definitions:
What I have been calling the foot pad area is the hindfoot plus the midfoot. The forefoot is composed of the metatarsals and the phalanges. Phalanges are not always found with fossils, so metatarsal lengths compared to the lengths of hindfoot plus midfoot are a useful metric. Comparing this foot to a chimp foot, the most striking differences are that midfoot is longer, the phalanges are shorter and the metatarsals and phalanges are straighter. Also the big toe bones are more robust on the human foot compared to the chimp foot. Note that these differences are relatively minor and easily within the realm of evolutionary changes, such as the differences seen in dog bones for instance. We can see intermediate lengths and curvature in the "little foot" fossil (Australopithicus)
And in this 3-way comparison of chimp, Australopithicus and human:
which also shows intermediate hip bones. We also have Homo naledi (another hominid) feet which are very similar to Homo sapiens And we have this direct comparison of phalange curvature:
There are more if one digs for them. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added 3way picby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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 this takes me back to my original point which is that this sort of change is impossible by trial and error of random mutations, ... Except, as you have been told so many times, it's not just mutation but selection. Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. The "trial" is surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over.
... let alone their having to be coordinated with similar staged changes all over the body. ... There are no "similar staged changes all over the body" that need to occur. Each mutation stands or dies on its own by surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over. You can have hands evolving separately from feet, leg bone lengths evolving separately from arm lengths and body size. The only criteria is that the individual survives and breeds to pass on the changes to the next generation. In fact evidence shows this to be the case, with some traits occurring at different times than other traits. Such as bipedal gait before hand and foot shape before skull size increase.
... What you are calling intermediates in the sense of their having supposedly evolved to that position ... Are fossils that show mutations from a parent population that are passed on to offspring that undergo further mutation and selection. It's a continuous process.
... are really just built-in genetic variations of the creature, whether ape or human being. And yet we can show many intermediates evolving between ape and human being ... doesn't that mean that human beings are part of the "built-in genetic variations of the" ape genome ... if your view is correct? It isn't, but for the sake of this argument we can assume it is: if we can show the same kind of "built in genetic variations" see in dogs -- slight changes in size, slight changes in shape, changes caused by interruption of development (HOX gene) say in dog skulls (ie - bull dog vs collie), etc -- then doesn't that mean we have "built in genetic variations" going from ape to human? Compare a human child with a chimp child and they are more similar than some dog breeds. The major differences notable in the heads of adults occur through development after birth. But evolution has an advantage over your concept: it can add genetic variation with random mutations, while your concept is stuck with an (albeit totally unknown, because you can't elaborate why) limited number of "built in" variations (how many? where are they built in? where are they hiding?). Evolution is only limited by survival and breeding. That is why evolution will always be a better explanation than your concept. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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:
|
My 2 sense worth ...
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random. Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, ... Each of us carries hundreds of mutations our parents did not have. They are either beneficial, neutral, or mildly harmful (such as a predisposition for cancer). One generation, one "trial" ...
... and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps. ... Yep, going on now in every individual in the (very large) breeding population. We are also seeing large changes in our ecology due to our habit of cutting down trees and digging up ores, burning fossil fuels that alter the atmosphere, etc. so mutations that may have been neutral or mildly harmful may be more beneficial than previously. Remember, the "trial" is to survive and breed. Any existing mutations that are passed to the next generation have done that and passed the trial.
... And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype. ... Nope. This is where you go wrong. There is no goal other than survival and breeding, that is all that is required. The conditions for this change with the ecological changes, but the goal to survive and breed remains the only goal necessary for evolution. Any individual that survives and breeds obviously has a "coherent phenotype" so that is irrelevant.
Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, ... Nope. All you need is divergent evolution between two breeding populations such that they don't interbreed. That of course uses the scientific definition of speciation, not the Monty Python "and now for something completely different" definition.
... otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different. According to your erroneous definition/s of species, but not according to science.
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions. You could, but it would be pointless, being based on a false precept, that there is more than survival and breeding involved.
Think it through yourself. The whole thing is simply impossible. We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be. ... Except that it is observed, a fact you try to get around by saying that it is "normal variation in a species" while ignoring the science. Nor have you in any way demonstrated that "It can't be."
... You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies. ... Except those hundred of new mutations in each individual resupplies genetic variability, as you have been told hundreds of times.
... There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. ... The genome "has instructions" for new individuals to survive and breed, mutations alter some of these "instructions" and they are tested by survival to breed. Those that pass become part of the genome for the next generation, which is slightly different from the one before. This process is repeated every generation.
... That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible. Except you have not demonstrated it is impossible, rather you have demonstrated denial and denial generated ignorance of how evolution actually works, and how it succeeds every generation. Speciation is something that happens, not because there is a goal, but because the population genome is constantly changing with every generation and the ecology that "tests" the population for survival and breeding is constantly changing, especially when populations divide into two or more different ecologies. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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:
|
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes All evolution is done by microevolution because it occurs in breeding population. It is not possible to happen in dead populations, or ones that have not yet been conceived. each generation is composed of individuals being tested for survival and reproduction. Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically. You want something completely different? Wait. It takes generations of accumulated small non-lethal changes that generation by generation pass the survival/reproduction test. The question for you: how do you define completely different in a way that can be scientifically determined. You’ve never done this, and I doubt you know how. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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: |
As I pointed out to Faith with my modest list in Message 385 of very simple direct questions that she must answer, while she is not almost completely unclear about what she is talking about she has also been dropping clues about her misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of evolution that she is using. Well I've been trying to understand for a couple years now, and I have a feeling that if one logged all the claims and sorted them, one would find inconsistencies and contradictions, as each argument she makes addresses only part of the issues at a time.
Her view of the appearance of a new trait (eg, chimp foot to human foot) appears to be that it must happen abruptly as within a single generation or within a few generations at most. This is coupled with her assertion that all these physical changes must all suddenly arise and come together randomly "at the same time". That is of course saltationism: Or what I call a "Monty 'and now for something completely different' Python's change. (you had to watch the show).
That is popularly known as geneticist Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster". Not only does that appear to be what Faith is thinking of, but over the decades I have also observed many creationists using the same kind of arguments which would lead them to the same false conclusions (though none of them were ever willing to discuss it). Yes, the only thing that comes close is polyploidy sudden speciation, more common in plants, but known in mammals. But even here the creationist complaint, as we get for all observed speciation events, is that it still isn't enough change to be macroevolution. I tried to address this on EvC Forum: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?. Faith made 219 posts on that thread that you can review here: Faith's Posts enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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