Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
27 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, PurpleYouko, vimesey (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,957 Year: 18,993/19,786 Month: 1,413/1,705 Week: 219/446 Day: 17/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Peter
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 93 (608167)
03-09-2011 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Blue Jay
03-08-2011 11:55 AM


Re: The fossil record
Bluejay writes:

Hi, Peter.

Peter writes:

What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?

They are related, but not necessarily as direct descendants.

Let's play with a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say we have a handful of fossils from millions and millions of years ago.
And, let's say that these fossils represent three species of animals that belong in the same genus.
And, let's say that we can tell, from their characteristics, that they are related to mammals.
However, they are so similar to one another, that it isn't clear which (if any) of the three species is an actual ancestor of mammals.
Also, we don't have any fossils that can link mammals to any particular one of these three species.
And, we don't have any other fossils of organisms that might be a better fit for the ancestor of mammals.

What steps can we take to determine which (if any) of these three species is the actual, lineal ancestor of mammals?

I don't think there is much we can do about it, other than to keep looking for other fossils that might shed light on the issue. So, in the absence of good evidence either way, we conclude for each of these three species that they either are the actual, direct ancestors of mammals, or they are sufficiently closely related to the actual, direct ancestors of mammals to be used as approximate surrogates for the ancestors in demonstrating the evolution of the mammal lineage.

For the sake of propriety, paleontologists have made it a habit to assume that any transitional fossil is just a surrogate, rather than the actual ancestor, because this is a less extreme claim.

So, to answer your question directly, yes, "transitional form" does bear a connotation of direct relationships. However, sometimes scientists are forced to approximate these direct relationships using surrogate species that are closely related to the direct ancestors, and these are also "transitional forms."

I was just going to mark this as 'noted' but you put a lot in there so instead I'd just like to thank you for the clarification.

I see what you mean now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2011 11:55 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 47 of 93 (608168)
03-09-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
03-08-2011 9:50 AM


Re: The fossil record
jar writes:

Peter writes:

jar writes:

Peter writes:


I'm still a bit confused by this ... 'intermediary' or 'transitional' without being directly related ... is that what is considered the situation?

Surely the only way 'transitionals' represent evidence for evolution is if they ARE related in the antecedent/descendent sense?

Huh?

Sorry but that just sounds like word salad.

Transitional means showing intermediary traits.

Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be.

What transitional fossils help us understand are the details, the minutia.

Sorry, it's probably because I'm a little confused.

What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?

Just on a side note: I didn't think we proove stuff at all in science -- I thought the aim was to not be able to refute it(?)

Read what I wrote. I said "Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be."

So how much of the evidence can we disgregard before it becomes ID instead ?

If you want to play silly word games do so with someone else. I left the kindergarten playground long ago.

Word games?

Next you seem to be playing yet another word game.

"antecedent/descendent" and "pre-post" are not synonymous.

Yes I can see that these are somewhat different, but you've followed up with an example which niether represents an antecedent-descendent nor a pre-post relationship.

So not quite sure where you were aiming with that.

Transitional characteristics are import in understanding the details of evolution. A good example is the mammalian middle ear. Recent discoveries of a small chipmunk (I've always loved the little striped things) like critter that lived around 120 million years ago gave us some exciting information. Now mammals weren't something new 120 million years ago, they had already been around almost that long before. But this little chipmunk size critter had a strange but well preserved middle ear. That's unusual because little bones like those in the middle ear don't often get preserved.

Now Mao (I call him Mao even though his real name is Maotherium asiaticus) had a relatively primitive middle ear, partly reptilian, partly mammalian. We know that there were earlier mammals with a more mammalian middle ear. We don't know (and really don't much care) whether Mao was a direct ancestor of any living species.

So what did we learn? We learned that the evolution of the mammalian middle ear was not a straight line affair, that there were either several different branches, multiple examples of the trait evolving or the trait evolving and regressing.

So we didn't actually learn anything then, since I think it's well documented that evolution follows a somewhat circuitous path at times.

Does this Mao fella have other reptilian traits?

If it does, but appears in the fossil record sometime after fully fledged mammals does it really tell us much?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 9:50 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 10:32 AM Peter has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 48 of 93 (608174)
03-09-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 6:50 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Buzsaw,

Please stop participating in this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 6:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2435 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(1)
Message 49 of 93 (608180)
03-09-2011 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


Robert Byers writes:

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

HI RB.
Please explain the amount of Iridium in the KT boundary, as it is one of the rarest elements on earth but is common in asteroids.

Then explain shocked Quartz, as it cant be made by anything but a large meteor strike or a nuclear explosion.

Then explain the tektites found in the KT boundary.

Then you can tell me how the great flood created an impact crater near Chicxulub Mexico on the Yucatan peninsula.

Lets not forger the chromium isotope anomaly in the KT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:56 AM fearandloathing has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31518
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 50 of 93 (608182)
03-09-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Peter
03-09-2011 8:57 AM


Re: The fossil record
What I hope you learned was that evolution is change over time, and not necessarily "antecedent/descendent" or "pre-post".

And no matter how much evidence you disregard ID will never be a viable model.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Peter, posted 03-09-2011 8:57 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peter, posted 03-11-2011 7:11 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 51 of 93 (608374)
03-10-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
03-08-2011 6:18 AM


frako writes:

so um how do creationist explain that no bunny rabbits are found before the boundry, or dogs, cows, human,.....

If your "theory" was right then we should find fossils of those animals beneath the boundary

how do creationists explain the lack of evidence for a young earth and tones of evidence for an old earth

how do creationist explain the lack of evidence for a global flood and tones of evidence to suport the statment that there was no global flood.

Al you creos have is your bronze age myths from a book writen by goat herders, and sometimes you distort the facts so much that i dare call you liars.

We're not liars.
The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.
The earth before the flood was different then later.
first the bible says there was a ratio of clean/unclean taken on the ark. Unless this was the ratio at the time then its expected the fauna ratio after the flood would be different then before.
the fossil record shows this as so.
Then it must be remembered that it was only post flood diversity that brought the modern type of creatures as is. before the flood there was no rabbits but simply the rabbit was of a kind that isn't recognized or found in the record. And so on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:18 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 2:46 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 03-10-2011 10:29 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 63 by frako, posted 03-11-2011 3:16 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 2:05 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 52 of 93 (608376)
03-10-2011 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
03-08-2011 8:54 AM


jar writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

Please explain how a flood can put down a layer high in Iridium.

You are free of course, to continue to claim all the false nonsense you want.

I don't know if the iridium is that widespread. in fact it demands a layer over top of rocks created after it was laid. this alone limits how common it is.
Options could be, for those areas with it, of sorting as a last act from the flood year which would include the remains of massive volcanoism.
Another option is that it was part of incoming of the over top layer. I mean volcano action being a great part of the formation or at least stirring about during the rock strata being created in episodes some centuries after the flood.
Iridium is uncommon in normal processes but not big upheaval ones as creationism models would talk about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 8:54 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 03-10-2011 9:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 53 of 93 (608377)
03-10-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
03-08-2011 10:19 AM


Re: Dating
Coyote writes:

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

The global flood is placed about 4,350 years ago.

The k-t boundary is about 65.5 million years ago.

Scientists would be embarrassed to make a mistake of that magnitude.

How can you justify supporting such a massive error?

its well known creationism doesn't accept these dates. So no error from here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2011 10:19 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2011 9:58 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 54 of 93 (608378)
03-10-2011 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:15 AM


The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.

And yet curiously creationists did not expect to find it until scientists found it for them.

Until scientists showed that some species had gone extinct, creationist dogma was that no species had ever gone extinct. Then when scientists convinced you guys that some species had gone extinct, you decided that this was "exactly" what you'd expect to find.

Let's see how "exact" this is. Without looking it up, which of the following would you expect to find going extinct at the KT boundary, and why?

* Trilobites
* Brontotheres
* Pterodactyls
* Ammonites
* Ceratopians
* Ichthyosaurs

You've got no idea, have you? You just have to wait 'til actual scientists (evolutionists every man jack of them) tell you which of those did go extinct at the KT boundary and then you can say "Yes, I expected exactly that".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:15 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 55 of 93 (608380)
03-10-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by fearandloathing
03-09-2011 10:26 AM


fearandloathing writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

HI RB.
Please explain the amount of Iridium in the KT boundary, as it is one of the rarest elements on earth but is common in asteroids.

Then explain shocked Quartz, as it cant be made by anything but a large meteor strike or a nuclear explosion.

Then explain the tektites found in the KT boundary.

Then you can tell me how the great flood created an impact crater near Chicxulub Mexico on the Yucatan peninsula.

Lets not forger the chromium isotope anomaly in the KT.

Is it common in asteroids/ how many of these are a accurate sample?
Anything of mineral nature can be created by great forces. the flood models provide this. in fact i understand they now accept diamonds, under microscope, were created by great forces and no time is needed.
I explained in another post options for iridium as from sorting of volcanic outpourings during the last stages of the flood or as part of the origin of the upper layer laid after the flood.

the impact crator is just one of many.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by fearandloathing, posted 03-09-2011 10:26 AM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 57 by fearandloathing, posted 03-10-2011 9:19 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 56 of 93 (608381)
03-10-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:56 AM


I explained in another post options for iridium as from sorting of volcanic outpourings during the last stages of the flood or as part of the origin of the upper layer laid after the flood.

Again I would point out that water can't just do whatever you want it to, even if you want it very very much. Saying "Flooddidit" does not actually constitute a description of a mechanism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2435 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 57 of 93 (608416)
03-10-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:56 AM


moronic answer
Your "answers" are at best entertaining. And you failed to explain my other questions at all, you fail to provide any scientific proof, and you just cant answer the ones that are too hard, probably because you cant find a YEC website that has any reference to my questions.
Now you should read a little about shocked quartz, it wasn't formed that way, it became shocked due to large impact, or explosion...nuclear sized...floods don't do that. Your reference to diamonds doesn't explain anything about how quartz became shocked quartz.

As you said earlier...creationist don't accept the timeline the rest of us accept, therefor no point in trying to talk to you in any meaningful way. Your view of the world around you is limited by your beliefs, that makes you too narrow-minded in my opinion.

Please cite some biblical reference for vulcanism during time of great flood?? If its not in your great "history" book then how can you prove it was happening?? Cant use real science because its time line means nothing, so must be in the bible.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31518
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 58 of 93 (608421)
03-10-2011 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:25 AM


Robert Byers writes:

jar writes:

Robert Byers writes:

Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

Please explain how a flood can put down a layer high in Iridium.

You are free of course, to continue to claim all the false nonsense you want.

I don't know if the iridium is that widespread. in fact it demands a layer over top of rocks created after it was laid. this alone limits how common it is.
Options could be, for those areas with it, of sorting as a last act from the flood year which would include the remains of massive volcanoism.
Another option is that it was part of incoming of the over top layer. I mean volcano action being a great part of the formation or at least stirring about during the rock strata being created in episodes some centuries after the flood.
Iridium is uncommon in normal processes but not big upheaval ones as creationism models would talk about.

We know that you are ignorant, but that can be cured.

There is nothing in the Biblical Flood myths about volcanism, so stop misrepresenting the Bible. You have read the Bible haven't you?

There is nothing in the Biblical Flood myths about any rock creation, so stop misrepresenting the Bible. You have read the Bible haven't you?

There is nothing in the Biblical Flood myths about sorting, so stop misrepresenting the Bible. You have read the Bible haven't you?

In addition, the Biblical Flood has been totally refuted and anyone that continues to claim it happened is simply spreading falsehoods and lies.

Finally, the Biblical Flood myths have NOTHING to do with the topic and are just another attempt to palm the pea, misdirect the audience and create attractive rabbit holes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:25 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 59 of 93 (608424)
03-10-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:26 AM


Re: Dating
its well known creationism doesn't accept these dates. So no error from here.

Creationism demonstrates it's intellectual bankruptcy by statements such as yours.

The fact that creationism doesn't accept those dates doesn't magically make them go away.

Facts can be stubborn things sometimes, and awful inconvenient. And they don't disappear just because somebody doesn't like them.

Care to try again?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 60 of 93 (608427)
03-10-2011 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:15 AM


Robert Byers writes:

The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.


Are you one of those creationists who believes that there were dinosaurs on the ark? If so, they must have gone extinct after the flood - i.e. you'd expect to find dinosaur fossils above the K-T/flood line.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:15 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by fearandloathing, posted 03-10-2011 4:19 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 65 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 4:08 AM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019