Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 158 (546082)
02-08-2010 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kaichos Man
02-08-2010 6:28 AM


Re: On the Absence of Fossils
I won't hear a word said against Dickie Dawkins, Foxdog. This man has provided Creationists with more ammunition than the rest of the evolutionary fraternity combined.
So you pin your faith principally on the words of just one man? Out of all scientists (or "the evolutionary fraternity", as you dub them in your quaint jargon) you derive your faith mostly from the words of Dawkins alone? Just this one man?
Haven't you ever considered the possibility that however devoutly you worship Richard Dawkins, he might be wrong? Please try to answer this question objectively. Perhaps you are shocked that I blaspheme against your chosen Messiah, but I think it's a fair question.
I should also be interested to hear which particular words of your guru give you faith and comfort. I've read some of his books, and I must have missed the passages that give you so much religious certitude. Perhaps you could quote from his own words to demonstrate whatever it is he says that has made you take him as your spiritual leader. It must be powerful stuff.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-08-2010 6:28 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 158 (546084)
02-08-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kaichos Man
02-08-2010 6:15 AM


Re: new dodge? what's next?
Oh yes. Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. Which means that, if you are identifying species by morphology alone (a la Parker, Arnold and their microphotography) you've got Buckley's chance of establishing a concrete, inarguable, specific evolutionary progression. At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know.
And here was I thinking that I knew that aardvarks and zebras were different species. Thanks for putting me right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-08-2010 6:15 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 158 (546095)
02-08-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kaichos Man
02-08-2010 6:28 AM


Re: On the Absence of Fossils
Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won.
Well of course you haven't seen anyone concede defeat on any subject. How could you? That would require you to be right about something.
I, on the other hand, have.
If you wish to share in this delicious experience, you could admit that you were wrong when you pretended that marsupials aren't mammals. But I'm not holding my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-08-2010 6:28 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 158 (546152)
02-08-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kaichos Man
02-08-2010 6:15 AM


Still misrepresenting reality
Hi Kaichos Man, still at the quote mining and misrepresenting eh?
At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know.
One can never be 100% certain about anything. One can, however be certain enough for practical applications, and even if one is right 90% of the time that would be more than sufficient in my opinion. You need to show that there is less than 90% confidence in the foraminifera classifications, and to date you have been totally incapable of doing that.
Again what are we trying to be so certain about? The absolutely correct classification of every single variety and subspecies population all the way back to the first common ancestor population of foraminifera? Hardly a realistic goal, nor do Parker and Arnold claim any such impossible result.
Certain enough that the lineages of descent are adequately described to sort most organisms into their respective places? The evidence is that this is, in fact, where we are, with some disagreements about some groups at the outlying tips of classification - whether they are species or subspecies.
Certainly there has been no major revision of the taxonomy of foraminifera above the level of family and very very little at the level of genera.
You have not posted a single reference that speaks to reclassification of any major level above genera. Your failure to find any such evidence shows again that we can easily have over 90% confidence in the current classifications.
You're still fighting the reality here.
It seems that the "major difficulty" is sorting out subspecies versus species
No it isn't. It is:
morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change.
"Morphological sequences" being precisely what was presented by Parker and Arnold.
Curiously, your opinion has little ability to alter reality. The full quote is (italics mine for emphasis):
... clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change.
In no way does this imply that this happens across the board to such a level of pervasiveness that all the data is rendered invalid. Interestingly, that would be the kind of evidence that you would need to make your claims, and the evidence still just is not there.
The problem you have vis-a-vis Parker and Arnold is that these clinial morphological coadaptations within environmental gradients AND your possible ecophenotypic variations within a species in environmental gradients occur at the same time as the core species as it evolves.
That core species remains in the evidence along with the varieties, and this core species allows Parker and Arnold to map their tree of relation without being sidetracked by these varieties into erroneous conclusions about these species. These variations are horizontal to the vertical geological time sequence of evolutionary change over millions of years.
For Parker and Arnold to be confused by the ecoclinial variations, the core species would have to be missing from the fossil record, and sadly, for you, they aren't.
Thus sorting the foraminifera out by morphology alone, as was done by Parker and Arnold, would result in branches from the main trunk. The main picture of the trunks would not be altered by what are minor variations on the theme of the core species in the overall picture.
The result is an analysis with at least 90% confidence of correctly mapping the evolutionary changes over time.
Now let's look at your latest misrepresentation:
Let's take a look at the way the University of South Florida views the problem:
quote:
One striving for an accurate suprageneric classification must supplement it with numerous updates, revisions, additions, and emendations, including Loeblich and Tappan's 1992 Present status of foraminiferal classification, and Sen Gupta's 1999 Systematics of Modern Foraminifera. Modern genetic techniques and consequent taxonomic conceptions mean these groupings will shift all the more often. Accurate species-level classification requires a vast and growing, not to mention often conflicting, library of references.
reference: http://gsa.confex.com/...5AM/finalprogram/abstract_97460.htm
Sounds pretty bad at first glance, but is that really what he is saying? The full quote is:
quote:
The standard taxonomic reference for the group, Loeblich and Tappan's 1987 Foraminiferal Genera and Their Classification, while an excellent reference, is nearly 20 years out of date, becoming more so all the time, and classifies only to genus level. One striving for an accurate suprageneric classification must supplement it with numerous updates, revisions, additions, and emendations, ...
So the reason that one needs to supplement the standard reference to have a classification above the level of genera is because the standard reference (now 23 years out of date, and preceding Parker and Arnold) only classified forams to the level of genera. You forgot to mention that part, and that means your quote is a false representation, a falsehood, a quotemine.
quote:
... including Loeblich and Tappan's 1992 Present status of foraminiferal classification, and Sen Gupta's 1999 Systematics of Modern Foraminifera. ...
The first being 18 years out of date and the second being 11 years out of date ...
... while we have seen genetic studies since McCloskey's 2005 article that have shown that many apparent subspecies variations are in fact cryptic genetic species, where even minor morphological differences can represent real species differentiation. Certainly these new studies would improve the overall classification of foraminifera if combined on an
These later studies still present a major problem for your assertions, as they have not uncovered a single case of misidentification of a subspecies that should belong to a different family. Fascinatingly, that would be the kind of evidence that you would need to make your claims, and the evidence still just is not there. Instead these studies confirm the morphological sorting down to that level of species detail, with the possibility of extending it to cover the cryptic species within current morphospecies.
quote:
... Accurate species-level classification requires a vast and growing, not to mention often conflicting, library of references.
So once again we see that it is at the species level that the accuracy becomes a problem
quote:
The proposed solution to this taxonomic quagmire is an online database of foraminiferal taxonomy. Such a database would provide the benefits of being hierarchical, easily searchable, widely and easily available, and always up to date. ...
In other words, accurate information is available, it is just a matter of sorting it out in the quagmire of numerous different sources into a unified updated and cohesive whole.
End result: over 90% validated confidence in classification down to the level of genera and slightly less confidence in classification down to species with a bit more uncertainty down to the level of subspecies variants. Hardly turning the world of foraminifera classification on it's ear.
Enjoy.
ps - for the record ...
Message 90: Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won. Both sides are gobsmacked that the other side can't see how badly they have lost.
I've seen stubborn people who can't admit to being wrong, true, but I've also seen a number of people admit to being wrong, both creationist and evolutionist. I've seen a number of creationists being converted to evolutionists by arguments at this forum (cavediver and Rahvin are two that will tell you that they have changed as a result of this forum convincing them that creationism was wrong), but I have not seen a single evolutionist change to creationist.
Perhaps you are projecting your inability to admit to being wrong onto everyone else?
Edited by RAZD, : added ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-08-2010 6:15 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 5:55 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 02-09-2010 1:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 95 of 158 (546177)
02-09-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
02-08-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
quote:
End result: over 90% validated confidence in classification down to the level of genera
90%. That's not bad.
quote:
and slightly less confidence in classification down to species
90% of 90%. 81%. Hmm. Getting a bit dodgey.
quote:
with a bit more uncertainty down to the level of subspecies variants.
90% of 81%. 73%. Oh dear. And this is the "unbroken evolutionary progression"? More than a quarter of it may be wrong?
Still. Good enough for what passes as science in evolution.
(Aside) - Hey, Foxdog. Get my drift?
quote:
cavediver and Rahvin are two that will tell you that they have changed as a result of this forum convincing them that creationism was wrong
Two people who have obviously never experienced a rhema. Christianity without the Holy Spirit? There's no such thing.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 9:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2010 8:50 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 02-09-2010 2:01 PM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 8:58 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 96 of 158 (546190)
02-09-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 5:55 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
Kaichos Man writes:
Two people who have obviously never experienced a rhema. Christianity without the Holy Spirit? There's no such thing.
Might I enquire as to how you know they've never experienced this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 5:55 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 11:56 AM Huntard has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 158 (546218)
02-09-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Huntard
02-09-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
Might I enquire as to how you know they've never experienced this?
Because if they had then they wouldn't have left Christianity. Duh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2010 8:50 AM Huntard has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 158 (546247)
02-09-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
02-08-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
cavediver and Rahvin are two that will tell you that they have changed as a result of this forum convincing them that creationism was wrong
Sorry, no. I was a creationist for about 6 months when I was 14. That was about as long as I could manage. Twenty three years later, EvC helped me rid myself of Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 9:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 158 (546249)
02-09-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 5:55 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
Two people who have obviously never experienced a rhema. Christianity without the Holy Spirit? There's no such thing.
Oh, I agree. It was a year from my conversion when I was baptised in the Spirit. Unbelievable experience - empowered me to proclaim the Gospel to everyone at school. I used to have crowds of kids gethering round to listen, heckle, and be amazed at what I told them. We had a flourishing Christian Union and our church youth group went into overdrive. Years later I was a worship leader with Vineyard, and years after that I was strongly involved with Hillsong - you may have heard of them I speak in tongues (still can of course), gave words of prophecy and knowledge, and have brought many to Christ.
And finally appreciate it all for the delusion it is But it was a fun ride...
ABE: Sorry folks - seriously OT
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 5:55 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 3:36 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 108 by misha, posted 02-12-2010 11:18 AM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 158 (546306)
02-09-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Kaichos Man
02-09-2010 5:55 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
Hi Kaichos Man,
90%. That's not bad.
90% of 90%. 81%. Hmm. Getting a bit dodgey
90% of 81%. 73%. Oh dear. And this is the "unbroken evolutionary progression"? More than a quarter of it may be wrong?
Of course you are assuming that it is 90% at each level. Remember that we are dealing with a phylum:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Rhizaria
Superphylum: Retaria
Phylum: Foraminifera
This is how the taxonomy stacks up:
        * Kingdom
o Phylum
+ Class
# Order
* Family
o Genus
+ Species

If genus classifications have 90% confidence then what is the confidence levels for family, 100%? order , 111%?, and class, 123???
Rather obviously your assumed factor cannot be correct, or your application of a factor at each level is bogus.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, 100% confidence for the phylum classification then the factor for each step would have to be (0.90)^1/4 or 97.4% confidence per level of classification to end up at 90% for genus:
phylum 100%
class 97.4%
order 94.9%
family 92.4%
genus 90.0%
Continuing on we now get:
species 87.7%
variety 85.4% ... better than 5 out of 6.
More than a quarter of it may be wrong?
Note that this is your "major difficulty" in classification in Message 55, your "[i]taxonomic quagmire[/t]" in Message 89, and it appears to be correct 85% of the time?
And this is the "unbroken evolutionary progression"?
Yes, because you have absolutely failed to show that the progression they developed is completely wrong. You can't even show that it is occasionally wrong. The occasional messed up species classification does not affect the progression in transitional forms.
Certainly you have not challenged the idea that transitional fossils exist and that they show transitions from ancestral populations to descendant populations.
Even if Parker and Arnold were correct only half the time there would still be a mountain of evidence of transitions and a plenitude of transitional fossils.
You are down to playing with fictional numbers and even there you can't show that no transitional fossils exist.
Time to review where this thread started:
Message 4: In the post that began this thread Kaichos Man claimed (Message 19):
... this is prcisely what we should see in the fossil record in abundance. Darwin was certain that future fossil finds would support his theory. They didn't. So now neo-Darwinists harp on about fossils being "extremely rare", and "difficult to form".
What a load of parrot droppings. Take a look around. Rivers, lakes, seas and oceans everywhere. Daily tides. Frequent droughts and floods. Fossils are being formed by the ton as we speak, all over the world. And this process has been going on for (supposedly) millions of years. If the theory of evolution was true, we would be up to our necks in transitional fossils, each tiny darwinian step lovingly catalogued in the strata.
We can ascertain the veracity of this arguement from incredulity by comparing the fossil record for the Foraminifera, Pelycodus and the Coelacanth.
...
Conclusions
What is clear, from comparing these three cases, is:
  1. there is a significant difference in the degree of preservation of fossils between Foraminifera, Pelycodus and Coelacanths,
  2. when there are no reasons for fossils not to be preserved (Foraminifera), that there are extensive fossil transitional records,
  3. when there are reasons that fossils may not be preserved (Pelycodus), that there are gaps in the fossil record due to missing fossils, and
  4. even when there are massive gaps in the fossil record (Coelacanths), that this does not mean that the intermediate organisms were missing, just that they did not fossilize where fossils have been discovered
Simply put, fossils do not need to exist to fill in gaps in the fossil record for intermediate forms to have existed.
And we are still at those same conclusions, completely unaffected by any of your various arguments ("parrot droppings"). All you have done is waste posts.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-09-2010 5:55 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 3:31 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 158 (546307)
02-09-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
01-29-2010 6:52 AM


We are now Number 1
Hi Percy
This just shows how important this forum is, we have now become the first find:
Message 61: It's worse than that: when you google ecophenotype foraminifera, and this thread on EvC is the second hit. The first hit is Helen Tappan's 1978 paper.
ecophenotype foraminifera - Google Search
Conclusion: your forum is one of the leading experts on ecophenotype foraminifera ... or it just is not that big an issue.
We are now the first pick. Helen is now in second place. Looks like the issue is so rare that the few posts here have been sufficient to alter the results.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-29-2010 6:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 3:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 102 of 158 (546608)
02-12-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
02-09-2010 9:01 PM


Re: We are now Number 1
We are now the first pick.
Hardly surprising when we have 101 posts, with the term "foraminifera ecophenotype" appearing in many of them (sometimes more than once).
Don't you feel even slighly embarrassed that this is the best argument you can put forward, RAZD?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 9:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2010 4:35 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 103 of 158 (546609)
02-12-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-09-2010 8:58 PM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
Note that this is your "major difficulty" in classification in Message 55, your "taxonomic quagmire" in Message 89, and it appears to be correct 85% of the time?
So by your own calculations, it could be wrong 15% of the time? Where does that leave Parker, Arnold and you with your "unbroken" evolutionary progression, RAZD?
Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2010 4:58 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2010 10:06 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 104 of 158 (546610)
02-12-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by cavediver
02-09-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Still misrepresenting reality
And finally appreciate it all for the delusion it is But it was a fun ride
I have one word for you, Cavediver. Pride.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 02-09-2010 2:01 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2010 4:37 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 158 (546613)
02-12-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Kaichos Man
02-12-2010 3:28 AM


Re: We are now Number 1
Hardly surprising when we have 101 posts, with the term "foraminifera ecophenotype" appearing in many of them (sometimes more than once).
Don't you feel even slighly embarrassed that this is the best argument you can put forward, RAZD?
Of course he doesn't, because it isn't. He didn't even put it forward as an argument relevant to the OP, merely as an interesting observation; a trivial sidebar to Percy's proof that you were not telling the truth about foraminifera.
With your peculiar difficulties in comprehension, don't you think you should take up some hobby other than debate? Or at least make it easier for yourself by arguing for something less flagrantly wrong? The burden of having to argue for creationism, of all things, has crippled the arguments of much better men than you.
Now, I might ask you if you're even slightly embarrassed to pretend that this is his "best argument", but in the first place your behavior does not lead me to suppose that you are capable of feeling shame, and in the second place the view of your intellectual capacities I have formed as a result of reading your posts persuade me that --- ludicrous though it may seem --- you might actually believe what you're saying.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Kaichos Man, posted 02-12-2010 3:28 AM Kaichos Man 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