Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 352 (9727)
05-15-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Joe Meert
05-15-2002 8:10 PM


Joe, that's a nice diagram that TC has shown (although I agree I'm at a loss as to what the 'Nich' are!). The dark areas are areas of abundant fossils and light areas are few.
The usual sort of diagrams I've come across in good paleontology texts include 'balloon' diagrams showing the occurrance of fossils in time/strata vertically and in abundance horizontally. TC's diagram is another way of showing this and as TC says it can be interpreted as the statistical result of hydrodynamic sorting and burial or the coming and going of spceies throughout geological time.
The fascinating thing for me was that in reading these research monographs I got to see, almost first hand, how one goes from these raw data distribution diagrams to the IMO fanciful diagrams in university textbooks:
1. You take quantitative geometrical anatomical measures from all of the fossil skeltons.
2. You feed these into a simple computer program which generates cladograms based on 1.
3. You get the raw fossil distribtuion data.
4. You rearrange the order of the species horizontally according to the cladogram.
5. You draw dotted lines on the fossil distribution diagram that correspond with those from the compuet caldogram.
6. In many university textbooks the dotted lines are often merged with the 'balloons' and it becomes a continuous flow.
Note:
(i) That there are almost always no transitional forms, or even occurances of the organism, along the dotted line.
(ii) The fossil record itself did not suggest what was related to what - the length of the dotted lines is near random. It was the cladograms derived from anatomical similarity that did that. On mnay occasions the dotted lines suggested by the cladogrmas have to dot through 100s of millions of years of geological time even though there are no known transitonal forms or examples of that species.
This is why evolutionists can say: 'No real evoltuonist uses the fossil record to distinguish between evolution and special creation'. This famous quote from New Scientist, made by a contemporary evolutionist in the 1990s, goes on to state that the best evidence for evoltuion is rather homology and biogeography. I agree - homology is suggestive of evoltuion but the fossil record does not back it up - either via the fossil order or with transitional forms. We must remeber tha tevoltuion is most deficient in explaining the thousands of family level transitions. Almost every family to family gap is completely empty and there are only a handful of famous, very tired looking, examples of transitions. The general public has no idea this is the case.
IMO the emperor has no clothes.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 8:10 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 352 (9741)
05-16-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 12:38 AM


Here is the quote Joe, including the famous statement, and note that I did summarise his qualification - that there are other things that evolutionsist use: biogeogaphy/homology (I think I remembered it pretty well). But it still stands that this Oxford zoologist thinks the fossil reocrd itself is rather poor at demonstrating evolution:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
So just what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, 25 June 1981, p.831
I believe he was able to say this becasue he knows that the way the fossil record is used is as descibed in my points 1-6 in my previous post. Did you read that? I taught myself this from reading many paleontology research monogrpahs. I never found it written down quite that way but that is how they do it. Any paleontolgogists disagree with my points 1-6? Can you disagree Joe?
And Ridley's 'observed evidence of evolution' is IMO very poor - finches, moths and viruses. I don't want to satrt a micro/macro debate here but there is no observational evidence of macroevoltuionary phenomonon.
This means that evoltuion is primarily based on homology and biogeography, not on ordered seqeuces in the fossil record as I always suspected.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 352 (9752)
05-16-2002 1:59 AM


^ Nice try Percy. But no, you read the article. Do you think his qualification is that bioeogrpahy and homology argues only agaist that type of creation?! That would make no sense at all. This statement means what it says - special creation does not mean what you said anyway. This statement goes right along with Gould's 'paleontologiusts tradesecret' quote that you all also wish was never said.
Any comment on my points 1-6? Are you aware that that is how paleontology is done? That is why these statements are made. Have you guys seen the paleontolgoical raw data balloon diagrams like I have?
------------------
You are go for TLI

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 352 (9755)
05-16-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by wj
05-16-2002 1:33 AM


wj: I specifically mentioned that homology/biogeogrphy was claimed to support evolution - read it again, I didn't miss that or misrepresent Ridley. If you find homology, bioeogrpahy and Galapogos convincing, that's fine with me. I certainly do not.
But if that's the case the case for evolution isn't anywhere near as strong. The general public thinks all of those dotted lines have transitonal forms along there. They do. And there are most definitely not such systematic examples of transitonal forms. I'm afraid it's the evoltuonsits doing the hand waving with the dotted lines which morph into continuous lines in the notorious flow diagrams of evolution.
Any of us who have ever read research level paleontology monographs know that my 'hand waving' about no family to family transitions is true. These texts on vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology have almost nothing to say about transitions! I'm serious. Each species comes (and may go) abruptly just as Gould et al says. There is no lead up in transitonal forms - that is a fairytale. Gould was right about that.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 2:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 352 (9763)
05-16-2002 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 2:21 AM


I'm sorry you think I'm sprouting a falsehood. What I said is based on reading four research level monographs which document the raw data of the vertebrate and invertebrate fossil records.
I stand by what I said:
"There is a systematic lack of transtional forms between families".
Tranquility Base, CvE BBS, May 16th 2002
I can tell from the number of times these books have been borrowed that almost no-one has ever seen this data! How many of you have ever looked at these type of books? They have balloon diagram after balloon diagram. It becomes abundantly clear what paleontologists mean about 'abrupt appearence'.
Of course Gould agrees there are transitional forms but he would also agree that there is a systematic lack of them, hence punctuated equilibrium.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 2:21 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 3:18 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 352 (9771)
05-16-2002 3:23 AM


But you're not prepared to discuss the nature of the distribution of families in the fossil record?
------------------
You are go for TLI

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 3:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 352 (9778)
05-16-2002 3:50 AM


Hold on Joe. One of these issues is an issue I can only hand wave in (the rapid drift stuff) whereas the paelontology one I have a good handle on. How about this deal: I'll go read Snelling et al's rapid drift theory so we can talk tommorrow and you comment on my paleontology points?
Anyway, what diversion? This is a flood thread and I originally commented on TC's fossil distribution diagram and mentioned how the ones I's seen showed me how paleontology has IMO misinterpreted flood deposits as gradual evoltuion through geological time. Sounds relevant to me.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 05-16-2002 11:01 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 352 (9822)
05-16-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 5:10 PM


I agree with TCs qualifications of what I said. I think in some places I said hydrodynamic sorting/burial order and what TC said is what I meant by that. Survival order modulated by hydrodynamic sorting etc. Evoltuionsist sometimes suggest hydrodynamic sorting rather than microevoltuion for shellfish morphological patterns.
Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 5:10 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 9:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 324 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 10:14 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 352 (9825)
05-16-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Percy
05-16-2002 11:01 AM


Here are three monogrpahs I found helpful:
1. MJ Benton Vertebrate Paleontology, Uwin Hyman, London (1990)
2. J Chaline (sorry I've got the library call numbers only at his point)
3. R Enay (call numbers only)
In number 1. there are about 20 balloon diagrams summarizing the fossil distribution of all (?) families of vertebrates in the GC.
I hope you guys unerstand what I mean by balloon diagrams? As TC and I have been saying (and I'm sure many of you appreciate) the index fossil idea is a digital idea. The reality is a statistical distribution that looks like a balloon if you draw abundance horizontally and strata/geological time level vertically. As TC and I say it is surely understandable that this is what you would see in a burial of ecologies. I agree you also expect this for evolution over time.
My 6 pts on how to do paleontology are undoubtedly correct. If anyone thinks there is any other way to do paleontology let me know. I promise to back up the six points with refs ASAP but for now I can solemly swear that that is how it is done!
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 05-16-2002 11:01 AM Percy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 352 (9832)
05-16-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by edge
05-16-2002 10:14 PM


Edge, we obviously believe that ecology, mobility, survival, swimming ability and hydrodynamic properties are responsible for the GC. These things are not easy to model but some attempts have bben made with good preliminary results. I don't know about flowering plants of the top of my head.
I'm talking about a preponderance of fast running herbivores and carnivores at most track sites. It doesn't prove anything, it's only suggestive Edge. The fossil graveyard locations are interestiong though. Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 10:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 10:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 328 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 11:01 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 352 (9843)
05-16-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 10:30 PM


I haven't seen you posting a lot of refs either Joe. I have read these things and in several places I have promised to post refs. I've read most of Selley, Pettijohn and Blatt et al and have seen the paleocurrent data with my own eyes.
Can I let you know what I've been doing the last year? I have decided to go back to the mainstream literature to see to what extent the creationists are correct. I know they are correct about genomics and micro/macro evoltuion etc first hand. I am so far impressed that they are generally on the ball in the areas of geology and especially paleontology.
Where I feel some lack on the creaitonist part is that, except in their technical journals, they haven't fully explained why and how mainstream science could be so wrong. I have decided to get to the bottom of it myself. I have got a good feeling now for how and why Lyell thought he had the goelogical porblem solved and yet IMO got it wrong. I also understand why paleontologists intitially thought that fosils spoke of evoltuion and then in the middle parts of the 20th century clung on to a pretty dirty secret until Gould released them (IMO OK).
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 10:30 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 332 of 352 (9863)
05-17-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by edge
05-16-2002 11:15 PM


I only brought up the PhD thing because you seemed to question my qualifications yesterday. And I'm a 'he'. I personally know (independently of creation dos) 2 other creationists (in additon to myself) who run mainstream academic labs in this city. We've been on academic comittees together and plotted the downfall of evoltuion (I'm kidding
).
We really are mainstream in every way except for believing in literal creation. We respect the scientific method and are trying to understand where mainstream science went wrong. At one point the three of us where on the executive committees for 3 of Australias top scientific societies! We lament what has happened. We love science. Having said that it effects my day to day work in almost no way at all. Macroevoltuion contributes very little to science even in life sciences contrary to popular opinion.
And I absolutely promise to post data ASAP. Most of my 'data' is mainstream geology quotes (that I have copied from texts) and my 'revelation' on how paleontology works which I will document. In addition I have a good understanding of comparative genomics from my mainstream work.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 11:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 12:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 335 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 1:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 352 (9866)
05-17-2002 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 12:37 AM


^ Fair enough Joe. I still think it looks like creation/flood anyway. And the Bible and the Lord never cease to amaze me.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 12:37 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 352 (10395)
05-27-2002 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by TrueCreation
05-27-2002 3:36 AM


TC, I don't have much to add on the feasibility of the flood at the moment.
I'm going to be posting to the plate tectonics thread, the mainstream geological column origin thread (waiting for it to be resurrected, thanks Percy) and I'm about to start a mainstream paleontology thread.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by TrueCreation, posted 05-27-2002 3:36 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 2:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024