Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
32 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,364 Year: 1,112/23,288 Month: 1,112/1,851 Week: 236/320 Day: 8/87 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 113 of 158 (547324)
02-18-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Kaichos Man
02-18-2010 7:04 AM


Re: Morphospecies, Ecophenotypes, Cryptic Species, Ecocllines, and their effect/s
Two "remarkable radiations", RAZD, The critter didn't just "evolve" the same way twice; all of its progeny repeated the exact same morphological radiation.

Based on what you quote this is clearly a gross exaggeration, 'nearly the same spectrum of morphologies' is not 'all of its progeny repeated the exact same morphological radiation'. I hope you can see that.

Impossible to the nth degree (according to Stephen J Gould) if it was genuine RM/NS.

Not really, Gould was specifically talking about the small likelihood of humans evolving if the 'tape of life' were rewound to around the Burgess shale era, the shorter the distance you wind the tape back the less unlikely similar outcomes become. If you look at lab based evolutionary experiments you will often see the same phenotypic outcomes, and even sometimes the same mutations underlying them, arising multiple times.

There is a case to be made for 'information that was already present in the genome' playing a part, but it doesn't need to be anything more than the information already accumulated from the common ancestral history of the foraminifera. Evolutionary novelty is naturally constrained by the context in which it arises, so that shared genetic heritage places constraints on the possible solutions to specific evironmental challenges.

That the same spectrum of morphologies might arise twice in the framinifera is certainly no more surprising than the similar forms of many mammalian/marsupial pairs or would you contend that that convergent evolution was also the result of 'information already present in the genome' ? You would be well to be cautious since in the case of marsupials and mammals we can actually work to dissect the underlying genetics of the morphologies.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-18-2010 7:04 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-24-2010 5:58 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 115 of 158 (547332)
02-18-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
02-18-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Morphospecies, Ecophenotypes, Cryptic Species, Ecocllines, and their effect/s
The actual paper the data is in would be 'Radiation of Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera' (1969). Unfortunately that isn't in a journal I have access to.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 02-18-2010 9:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 120 of 158 (547948)
02-24-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Kaichos Man
02-24-2010 5:58 AM


Re: Morphospecies, Ecophenotypes, Cryptic Species, Ecocllines, and their effect/s
It is you who should be cautious, WK.

Because you might pull out an argument from authority on me? Watch as I quail before your fallacious arguments.

As far as I can tell all your reply means is that you don't really have a reply.

Conway Morris' belief in 'direction' is no more substantiated by the evidence than yours in cryptic 'information already present in the genome', and probably comes from the same source, religious conviction.

In the same way that materialistic evolutionary processes are quite capable of providing 'information already present in the genome' which may predispose related populations to follow broadly similar genetic trajectories so can it provide a basis for similar 'direction' for the morphological form through similar environmental constraints.

What there is no evidence for is hidden 'information already present in the genome' nor for any supernatural agency providing 'direction'.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-24-2010 5:58 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-26-2010 7:34 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 127 of 158 (548211)
02-26-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Kaichos Man
02-26-2010 7:34 AM


Re: Morphospecies, Ecophenotypes, Cryptic Species, Ecocllines, and their effect/s
True of me, but not of Conway Morris. His religious conviction came from the evidence.

Can you give us some evidence showing how Conway Morris changed from a non-believer into a believer in the face of the biological evidence? I'd susggest that most people gain religious convictions before they gain the relevant experience to become evolutionary biologists/ paleontologists. But I accept that this isn't always the case, I'm just not prepared to blindly accept your claim that Coway Morris came to his faith as the result of a Damascene conversion based on the fossil record and instances of convergent evolution.

Really? The stochastic de novo creation of genes? At odds of uncountable goggillions to one, with no help from natural selection because there is not yet anything to select?

In some cases yes, there are a number of plausible routes for de novo gene creation, you may recall the thread 'New genes in the Human lineage' where we discussed some examples, and many more mechanisms for the recombination of existing genetic information into novel functional combinations. Your estimation of the odds, as usual for a creationist, is pulled out of thin air.

You make out as if there is an alternative ID mechanism for the appearance of truly novel genetic information in the genome, which of course there isn't. When the two possibilities are mechanisms we know exist which can create genetic novelty on the one hand and no mechanism which we don't even know if it exists or not on the other then I think the known mechanisms require less faith.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-26-2010 7:34 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020