Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 58 (28931)
01-12-2003 6:45 PM


Go get a paleontology research text from a university library. I recommend MJ Benton's 'Vertebrate Paleontology'.
Take the fossil distribution diagrams (for any vertebrate sub-group) and visually observe the fitting of the data to the evolutionary ideology. In particular notice the presence of lengthy ghost lineages (vast time gaps between major groups). The dotted lines traverse hundreds of millions of years in some instances. You can visually see that the fossil distribution bubbles have to be re-ordered from first appearence order according to the similarity tree.
The ghost lineages are not suggested by the actual fossil distribution data but are rather due to the fact that because A is more anatomically similar to C than B we have to put C before B in the evolutionary scenario and therefore assume a huge ghost lineage in many instances for C. It is simply the assumption of evolution that forces one to introduce ghost lineages. 'C' can often be a whole series of groups. Ghost lineages have to be proposed for a half-dozen groups for example becasue the more derived group, as determined from anatomy, appears deeper in the record. The distibution data did not itself suggest any links or that the more derived group is really derived from the less derived groups.
Lets take amphibians for example. A ghost lineage of over one hundred million years has to be introduced for six distinct groups of extinct amphibians (including Brachyopidae) simply because three other amphibian groups (including the strange flat-headed Eryopidae) are anatomically more 'derived' but appear one hundred million years lower in the fossil record.
This occurs across the board in the fossil record. It is not as if digging can solve this. Multiple less derived groups frequently systmatically appear above more derived groups by up to hundreds of millions of years in ay category of life. These ghost lineages can cover more than 20% of the entire Phanezoic.
The other thing that comes from eye-balling the fossil distribution diagrams is that last comon anscestors (LCAS) are never (not in his book anyway) actual observed species. The LCAS are all simply dotted proposals for every single branching. What this means is that not only are the transitional forms missing but the lifeforms that derived forms are supposedly related to make no appearence in the fossil record either. The dotted lines do not join up to an observed form but rather a hypothetical form. Systematically, across the board. All observed forms (ie represensted by actual fossils) appear at the tips of branches as Gould put so well. He was not exaggerating in his famous statement.
All of the branchings implied by dotted lines are just hypothetical. There are no transitaonal forms found along the dotted line. Any fossil distribtuion can be made compatible with any cladogram derived from anatomies by reordering and dotted lines of approporiate length.
The reordering of the fossil distribution diagrams according to similarity and joining with arbitary length dotted lines is a forcing of the data to an ideology regardless of the fact that there is some ordering of fossils with similarity and complexity. Paleontology is immensely interesting, and its methods of cladograms and distribution diagrams very logical but the idea that the fossil record demonstrates macroevoltuion is complete myth.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:25 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 58 (28949)
01-12-2003 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 6:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
...
The reordering of the fossil distribution diagrams according to similarity and joining with arbitary length dotted lines is a forcing of the data to an ideology regardless of the fact that there is some ordering of fossils with similarity and complexity. Paleontology is immensely interesting, and its methods of cladograms and distribution diagrams very logical but the idea that the fossil record demonstrates macroevoltuion is complete myth.
One teensy little problem (among some others that we can address later) here, TB. You make the typical creationist error in thinking that evolution should explain what we don't see. Quite to the contrary, it must explain what we do see in the fossil record. And it does. Creationism on the other hand, does not even come close, unless you wish to violate various physical laws and modern principles. For example, trees that have been floating around in a flood surge should violate Stokes Law and settle in the water faster than clastic sediments. This is one that TC has come up with on another thread.
Now, if you want to be an absolutist (which of course, you do), then of course it's all conjecture and we should just wait until all fossils have been unearthed before explaining the fossil record. That puts you in the driver's seat in promoting a myth, since science can be ignored until some indefinite date in the future. I am sorry, but once again, that is not how we do things in science. We push back frontiers, we do not cringe from them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 6:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 10:32 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 58 (28952)
01-12-2003 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
01-12-2003 10:25 PM


Happy New Year Edge!
We accept the fossil distributions as fact and propose that the orderings are Flood orderings of created kinds living in mulitple ecologies. Some of it makes immediate sense (invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles/mammals, birds) and much of the rest is simply a proposal.
The point of my post is that, unknown to the layman, in the evolutionary scheme, any fossil distribution can accomodate any cladogram!
There is no point in 'pushing back frontiers' if your entire scheme is incorrect.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 58 (28955)
01-12-2003 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 10:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We accept the fossil distributions as fact and propose that the orderings are Flood orderings of created kinds living in mulitple ecologies. Some of it makes immediate sense (invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles/mammals, birds) and much of the rest is simply a proposal.
Ah, good. Then you can give us a mechanism for the fossil ordering. Please do so. Be sure to explain how flowering plants ended up at higher stratigraphic levels than dinosaurs and gymnosperms. If you can't do it - back to the drawing board! Evolution does explain it.
quote:
The point of my post is that, unknown to the layman, in the evolutionary scheme, any fossil distribution can accomodate any cladogram!
Well, ultimately, of course. That is the whole idea of evolution: common ancestry. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that you can link dinosaurs with primates? What exactly does this have to do with evolution, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 10:32 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 11:18 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 58 (28957)
01-12-2003 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
01-12-2003 10:45 PM


Edge
I get the feeling you don't understand the primary issue of my first post.
The fossil record gives one ordering.
The anatomical similarity tree gives another.
By horizontally reordering the fossil distribution diagram according to the anatomical similarity tree, and drawing arbitary length dotted lines, the fossil record can be made consistent with any anatomical similarity tree. The lifeforms in the tree could be swaped and you could still accomodate it. It's just a dot to dot exercise that assumes evolution rather than demonstrating it.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 10:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 58 (28958)
01-12-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 11:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
By horizontally reordering the fossil distribution diagram according to the anatomical similarity tree, and drawing arbitary length dotted lines, the fossil record can be made consistent with any anatomical similarity tree. The lifeforms in the tree could be swaped and you could still accomodate it. It's just a dot to dot exercise that assumes evolution rather than demonstrates it.
Of course it assumes evolution! Evolution works! If it didn't, then we would know about it soon enough when the results of new work using evolution as a premise didn't mesh with reality. I hate to rain on your parade, but there is virtually no one trying to 'prove evolution' these days. In general, we have gone beyond that and moved on to other things. You see, the whole idea is to advance science, not stagnate while trying to prove to every absolutist that evolution occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 11:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 11:29 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (28959)
01-12-2003 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
01-12-2003 11:26 PM


^ What I am showing you is that the assumption of evolution requires vast ghost lineages of up to hundreds of millions of years to be introduced for multiple sub-groups of organisms in every group you care to check.
The data doesn't suggest at all that there is a lineage of one hundred milion years connecting Brachyopidae and five other groups of amphibians to lower forms. It's only the assumption of evolution that requires that line to be drawn in.
As you point out in your post, you all assume evolution is proven but a modern look at what the fossil distribution actually looks like shows that mainstream paleontology always was a fitting to an ideology.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:26 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 9 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 58 (28960)
01-12-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 11:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The data doesn't suggest at all that there is a lineage of one hundred milion years connecting Brachyopidae and five other groups of amphibians to lower forms. It's only the assumption of evolution that requires that line to be drawn in.
No the data does not. Evolutionary principles allow us to propose such a lineage. Otherwise, there is no explanation. Evolution does not require this specific line.
quote:
As you point out in your post, you all assume evolution is proven but a modern look at what the fossil distribution actually looks like shows that mainstream paleontology always was a fitting to an ideology.
Evolution explains the fossil record. And no, we do not assume evolution proven. We assume that it works. So far there have been no contradictions to this. And what better way to test it than using it as a premise? If you have something better, please let us know.
And no, the fossil record was recognized before evolutionary theory was applied to explain it. You seem to have everything backward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 11:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 12:24 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 58 (28962)
01-12-2003 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
01-12-2003 11:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What I am showing you is that the assumption of evolution requires vast ghost lineages of up to hundreds of millions of years to be introduced for multiple sub-groups of organisms in every group you care to check.
Actually, you are showing us that evolution can be a useful tool in interpreting the fossil record. It allows us to interpret the origin of some of these organisms. From here we go on to test that lineage and use it to interpret others. Simple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-12-2003 11:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 12:39 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 58 (28963)
01-13-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
01-12-2003 11:40 PM


^ The lines are a premises as you put it. Your tests have failed. There are systematically no transitional forms along any of those dotted lines.
Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great premise. It's just that you're fooling yourself if you think those dotted lines prove anything.
The creation/flood scenario is equally viable. Some organisms with similar anatomy are buried in similar strata whereas other sets of organisms with similar anatomy are separated by thousands of feet of strata.
No the data does not. Evolutionary principles allow us to propose such a lineage. Otherwise, there is no explanation. Evolution does not require this specific line.
Evolution most certainly does require the dotted lines from Brachyopidae et al to drop one hundred milion years down and extend below Eryopidae et al due to the forcing of the cladogram onto the fossil distribution data. Eryopidae et al are more derived than Brachyopidae even though they occur one hundred million years earlier. Hence the one hundred million year ghost lineages from Brachyopidae et al in the evolutioanry scenario.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:40 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 01-13-2003 2:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 58 (28964)
01-13-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
01-12-2003 11:44 PM


It allows us to interpret the origin of some of these organisms. From here we go on to test that lineage and use it to interpret others. Simple!
All you've done is show us how evolution occured if it occured. But it may not have occured. That is what this forum is about.
Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested? These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 01-12-2003 11:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 01-13-2003 5:35 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 14 by edge, posted 01-13-2003 2:38 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 58 (28978)
01-13-2003 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 12:39 AM


TB,
quote:
Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested? These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.
But Benton claims ghost ranges are being filled in faster than new ones are appearing. Regardless, Edge has adequately answered this already.
quote:
Edge: One teensy little problem (among some others that we can address later) here, TB. You make the typical creationist error in thinking that evolution should explain what we don't see. Quite to the contrary, it must explain what we do see in the fossil record. And it does.
But just as importantly, how do you test the ghost lineages re. The flood? Does flood theory even make predictions as to what is pre, post, & in-flood rocks are? So that the ghost lineages can be applied to those strata in order to see if the gl’s are consistent with flood sediments only? Not that I want to put words in your mouth, but wouldn’t a fundy prediction be that there should be NO gl’s in post flood sediments at all, since it is the flood that allegedly introduces those gl’s in the first place. If not, then the gl objection goes away, surely, since you would be accepting gaps in the fossil record and accepting them to be consistent with common descent (diversification of kinds etc) post flood. In which case gaps in the fossil record, all through the geologic column can be interpreted the same way, ie that they represent undiscovered fossils. I’ve argued with you before about this, you interpret gaps above family level as actual gaps, but gaps below family level are explained as missing fossils. This is hypocritical, you can't have it both ways.
Science explains data, not a lack of it. Fossil gaps are consistent with evolution, that is, they provide no contradictory positive evidence. A lack of evidence isn’t positive evidence. However, there is excellent positive evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record; the evolution of terrestriality in vertebrates in the late Devonian-Carboniferous; Transitional forms from basal amniotes to mammals in the Permo-Triassic; intermediate forms between therapods & birds in the Jurassic etc.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 12:39 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 5:32 PM mark24 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 58 (28999)
01-13-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 12:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The lines are a premises as you put it. Your tests have failed. There are systematically no transitional forms along any of those dotted lines.
No, no, no. The lines are interpretations based on using the tool of evolution.
quote:
Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great premise. It's just that you're fooling yourself if you think those dotted lines prove anything.
That is not the idea. The lines are a possible explanation.
quote:
The creation/flood scenario is equally viable.
Not at all. If so, please answer all of the questions that you have ignored over the last year...
quote:
Some organisms with similar anatomy are buried in similar strata whereas other sets of organisms with similar anatomy are separated by thousands of feet of strata.
Your point being?
quote:
Evolution most certainly does require the dotted lines from Brachyopidae et al to drop one hundred milion years down and extend below Eryopidae et al due to the forcing of the cladogram onto the fossil distribution data.
Again, no. The lines are drawn by one person who has some degree of confidence in it. He could have chosen to draw no line at all.
quote:
Eryopidae et al are more derived than Brachyopidae even though they occur one hundred million years earlier.
Again, no. You see a proposed lineage. One that makes more sense than just ignoring the data that we have.
quote:
Hence the one hundred million year ghost lineages from Brachyopidae et al in the evolutioanry scenario.
Again, no. They are permissible in the evolutionary scenario.
I understand that you have a PhD, but you sure seem confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 12:24 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 5:41 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 58 (29000)
01-13-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
01-13-2003 12:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
e: It allows us to interpret the origin of some of these organisms. From here we go on to test that lineage and use it to interpret others. Simple!
TB: All you've done is show us how evolution occured if it occured. But it may not have occured. That is what this forum is about.
No. Evolution was a premise in this study. It does not show how evolution occurred. It shows how the data can be interpreted in the light of evolutionary theory. It is a story that makes some sense.
quote:
Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested?
They are tested periodically by new fossil discoveries. Sometimes the lineages are right, sometimes they are wrong. Either way it has no bearing on the validity of evolution, only on the availability of data.
quote:
These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.
And your point is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-13-2003 12:39 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 58 (29010)
01-13-2003 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
01-13-2003 5:35 AM


Mark
But Benton claims ghost ranges are being filled in faster than new ones are appearing. Regardless, Edge has adequately answered this already.
Yes, all the balloons are filling out, but the key ghost lineages aren't going to go away. That group of six amphibians including Brachyopidae is systematically 100 million years out, all six of them. It is clear that those ghost lineages are only there because the assumption of evolution requires Eryopidae et al to be older! Just remove Eryopidae et al and suddenly the six ghost lineages for Brachyopidae et al disappear overnight. This can be seen all throughout the record.
But just as importantly, how do you test the ghost lineages re. The flood? Does flood theory even make predictions as to what is pre, post, & in-flood rocks are?
I completely agree with you on the proclaimative nature of our model for the fossil record. I will claim it's early days for us. I personally find flood ordeing plausible.
Not that I want to put words in your mouth, but wouldn’t a fundy prediction be that there should be NO gl’s in post flood sediments at all, since it is the flood that allegedly introduces those gl’s in the first place.
I agree that post flood sediments shouldn't have gl's although of course in our sceanrio we question what sort of fossilization occurs under non-catastrophic conditions. Obviously we will have a betrter idea when we gain a consensus on the flood boundaries. We really don't expect much layering post-flood unless the idea of catastrophic post-flood glacial melting gains support.
I’ve argued with you before about this, you interpret gaps above family level as actual gaps, but gaps below family level are explained as missing fossils. This is hypocritical, you can't have it both ways.
In our scenario we will probably never see the actual record of diversification since the rocks are either flood or galcial melting, catastrophic either way. Then there's about 4000 years of normal layering which, yes, could potentially record some diversification. We actaully think fossilization is very rare so it would be a patchy record. But in the basins (prone to sedimentaiton rather than erosion) even we would expect to see some nice microevolutionary stories. But fossilization may primarily be a Noahic feature.
And it's not hypocritical because you have hundreds of millions of years of layering, we have only thousands of years of non-flood rocks. And the flood-rock fossil record is a snapshot not a time series.
Science explains data, not a lack of it. Fossil gaps are consistent with evolution, that is, they provide no contradictory positive evidence. A lack of evidence isn’t positive evidence. However, there is excellent positive evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record; the evolution of terrestriality in vertebrates in the late Devonian-Carboniferous; Transitional forms from basal amniotes to mammals in the Permo-Triassic; intermediate forms between therapods & birds in the Jurassic etc.
There is some isolated, but tantalizing, evidence, agreed. But transitions are systematically absent across the board as anyone reading any paleontology book which shows fossil distributions is aware.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 01-13-2003 5:35 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Randy, posted 01-13-2003 7:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024