Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9010 total)
53 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 881,552 Year: 13,300/23,288 Month: 230/795 Week: 26/33 Day: 8/5 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 739 of 1163 (793944)
11-07-2016 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 737 by mindspawn
11-07-2016 8:41 AM


A clear answer
Hi Mindspawn,

Been a while since we last talked about the Validity of Radiometric Dating or about ID (and the definition of life).

I have a clear answer. ...

2 + 2 = 5

Well golly gosh, I have a clear answer. What is your answer to explain the end number?

... What is your answer to the lack of transitional fossils to explain the sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion.

Curiously, there are transitional fossils, it wasn't sudden, and they weren't phyla (a human construct) at the time. There, I have a clear answer.

Has it really been 3 years since you dropped out on the Great debate on radiocarbon dating?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 737 by mindspawn, posted 11-07-2016 8:41 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 793 of 1163 (794154)
11-10-2016 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Evolution Process and Theory
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on? ...

The massive amount of evidence that evolution occurs in virtually every generation of every species.

Can you state what the Theory of Evolution is? Let me give you my take:

We start with the process of evolution:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies. Such facts are the basis for scientific theory.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagensis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

Thus the fossil record is a test of the ToE instead of the foundation, and absences of evidence is not a problem, if there is reason for the absence, and there is plenty evidence that the fossil record is incomplete. Each new find then becomes a test of the Theory.

... The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils. ...

Except that such sudden appearance of new species has never been observed, and thus it is not fact and cannot be used as the basis for scientific theory.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 3:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 830 of 1163 (794214)
11-11-2016 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 801 by mindspawn
11-11-2016 3:38 AM


Evolution Process and Theory
I notice that you did not provide your definition of the Theory of Evolution, and until we can agree on the terminology we will be talking past each other. I will continue to use mine until we can discuss yours.

Sure one can see some "Evolving" occurring. ...

As I said in Evolution Process and Theory (I edited the subtitle) virtually all species show the process of evolution happening in every generation.

... But whether you clearly admit it or not, the theory of evolution explains the existence of MOST modern life forms via a GENE ADDING process. ...

and some by gene loss processes, and some by gene altering processes, ... ie -- the "changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation" ... ALL the processes of evolution are involved, not just net gain.

... Most organisms have more unique active coding genes than the original so-called LUCA and so there are nearly always claimed NET GAINS in the number of these genes over time. ...

They can also have some that are lost or altered. What we can be sure of (have high confidence in) is that differences in DNA accumulate over time, and thus there are always NET DIFFERENCES in the genes over time.

What makes "unique active coding genes" different from other genes? Do you mean the genes that are expressed in the phenotyes?

If what you mean is that every species, every variety, every individual, has some unique gene sequences, then you are talking about something that is mundanely true, because mutations happen.

... This process is essential to explain most life-forms according to evolutionary claims. ...

I again refer you to my definition:

quote:
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagensis(1), and the process of cladogenesis(2), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

That is how evolution science explains all life forms, past and present. Not only "net gain" (which is a creationist PRATT).

... So I agree with most other processes of evolution, and these sequences of adaptation can be seen in the fossil record but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. Thus you are left with an empty fantasy of a theory, with no evidence how most modern organisms can possibly exist. ...

Well it is difficult to see DNA in fully permineralized or cast type fossils, but we do see the differences in phenotype over generations. For instance Pelycodus:

quote:

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. ...

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


Notice the high degree of overlap between generations, so most of the populations are similar in distribution of phenotype traits, but there are some gains and some losses. Note that anagenesis(1) is clearly visible from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii but there are no longer any shared traits on the graph.

Notice that we also see a clear division of the breeding population into two independent daughter populations, or cladogenesis(2), in this fossil record.

Thus we see that these two processes clearly explain this fossil record, that there is nothing "empty" or "fantasy" about these processes explaining this fossil record.

... but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. ...

We can clearly see the phenotype expression of the genotypes and the results of active gene differences between the populations generation to generation and between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus at the top.

Can you explain why these observed differences need to be "net gains" in order to explain this evidence?

Enjoy


Notes
(1) -- The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
(2) -- The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 801 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 3:38 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by mindspawn, posted 11-13-2016 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 923 of 1163 (794422)
11-15-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by mindspawn
11-13-2016 5:45 PM


Re: Evolution Process and Theory
The theory of evolution is fine as an explanation for how kinds have adapted minor DNA changes since creation week. I believe allele frequencies have a large role to play, but also some of the processes that you mention have been a reality.

As I said the processes have been observed, and thus it is fact that they do occur. Every generation of every breeding population evolves. Again the process of evolution is:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Alleles are hereditary traits. Their expression in the phenotype gives you variations in appearances from individual to individual, and in bone structures, which then get preserved in fossils. Intermediate fossils show the progression from one generation to the next, as was shown in Message 830 with the Pelycodus fossil record. Of interesting note to scientists, Pelycodus appears ancestral to primates, and no human skeletons have been found that are as old as these fossils.

But the theory of evolution is incorrect as an explanation of where those original organisms came from. ...

And again I note that you have not provided a definition for what you think the Theory of Evolution (ToE) IS, and this comment leads me to believe that you are not using a correct version.

The theory does not explain origins, it explains descent. This may seem a minor quibble to you, but semantics are important to communication and understanding. What it means is that we trace back from known organism to previous known organism to previous known organism.

... Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. ...

LUCA is an hypothetical construct, not an actual known organism. The hypothesis is constructed based on the known evidence of the formation of the nested hierarchy of related organism that is the result of evolutionary processes and which is the signature of "macro-evolution" (as defined and used by scientists). Much like the actual physical common ancestor between Chimps and Humans is a hypothetical construct, not an actual known organism (and which in reality would be a breeding population of many individuals and not a single individual).

... Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential.

So?

Evolution encompasses gene adding mutations, gene altering mutations and gene subtracting mutations. The differences in DNA sequences within a breeding group show this as an on-going process. Some new alleles are modified copies of old alleles creating a "new" allele.

The composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA.
Wade, Nicholas (25 July 2016). "Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2016.

If you read closer this was determined to be the minimum number required.

I repeat: Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. ...

So? Try looking up the largest genomes, and see where that leads you.

... Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential. ...

So? As noted previously and repeated several times, evolution can add, subtract and modify genes, so adding genes is part of the package.

But not all original genes are necessarily preserved in all species, they don't need to be for evolution to operate as seen in the world today.

... Yet we do not not observe any additional unique active coding genes that add fitness to any organism, ...

But that is not a necessary attribute of evolution. The necessary tribute is that additions, subtractions and modifications do not prevent survival and mating. Some of those will be unique to each species. Do they necessarily add fitness? No they just don't prevent it.

... therefore evolution is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. ...

And again, you fail to provide what you consider the theory of evolution to actually be. I suspect it is a straw-man and not a real usable scientific definition.

... Creationism better fits the evidence.

I have previously compared "kinds" to cladistics and that a "kind" could be defined as any clade without an ancestor. So far there is no evidence of such, certainly not of all life terminating is separate distinct unrelated ancestors all at the same time.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 832 by mindspawn, posted 11-13-2016 5:45 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 930 of 1163 (794458)
11-16-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 929 by Pressie
11-16-2016 6:26 AM


Re: Loony theory/Obvious theory
... Hipos are cuter.

Until you see their dark side.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 929 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2016 6:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 937 of 1163 (794592)
11-17-2016 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by mindspawn
11-14-2016 3:55 PM


The Theory of Evolution
... our argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. ...

Not right, he saw that the geological record was incomplete. That doesn't add up to flaws in his theory.

He observed that species change over time, and that new species arise from variation in the breeding population and natural selection culling less fit individuals from the breeding population.

His insight was that this basic process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record.

... his own theory ...

(1) Can you tell me what that theory was?

(2) Modern biology has expanded on the original theory, can you tell me what the modern theory of evolution is?

Because I have yet to see you define what you think the theory of evolution is.

If your concept is flawed for what the theory of evolution is, then your whole argument would be flawed and pointless.

Seeing as your argument is flawed and pointless, I suspect that the error lies in your misconception of the theory of evolution.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 855 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2016 3:55 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 940 of 1163 (794777)
11-25-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 939 by Coyote
11-24-2016 2:55 PM


Re: Mindspawn's Personal Fossil Failure
Creationists have been poking at C14 dating for decades ...

Except when it confirms biblical events, dead sea scrolls, etc. ... which leads to the question of when did the accuracy change. The usual answer is the flood, but then it should be able to date when the flood occurred ... by a marked difference between C14 dates and dates derived by annual methods (tree rings, varves, ice cores, etc) ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 939 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2016 2:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 969 of 1163 (794919)
12-01-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by mindspawn
12-01-2016 8:45 AM


Alfred Russel Wallace
Most animal phyla appear fully formed. Many of these do not appear suddenly all over earth, but radiate out from an early location.

Alfred Russel Wallace, the "other Darwin" in the process of deducing his theory of evolution first published his "The Law of Sarawak in (wait for it) ... 1855:

quote:
Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.

Every species linked by time and location to a pre-existing closely allied species. Over and over and over again:

quote:
9. As generally in geography no species or genus occurs in two very distant localities without being also found in intermediate places, so in geology the life of a species or genus has not been interrupted. In other words, no group or species has come into existence twice.

Linked only by time and location to pre-existing closely allied species.

For more on this see Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 961 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2016 8:45 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 984 of 1163 (795179)
12-07-2016 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 982 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2016 2:16 PM


Re: the evidence supports evolution
My problem with evolutionary theory is that other than the "clades" one would expect from creationism ...

"One" would? But no creationist ever has before you. ...

Actually I have argued that the closest we can get on the evolutionary side to creationism concept of "kinds" is clades ... all descendants are still members of the kinds\clades, and we just disagree on how far back the clades go, where the original common ancestors began.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 982 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2016 2:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 5:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1012 of 1163 (795560)
12-14-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 991 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 7:21 AM


Re: Evolution has theory, no evidence
Evolution has theory, no evidence

I do not see why the discovery of a new species of semi-aquatic mammal proves it is ancestor to the whale. Evolutionists just love semi-aquatic organisms and are too desperate for intermediates to see them as what they are. Mudfish and otters are semi-aquatic, the existence of semi-aquatic organisms in the fossils record just proves the VARIETY of life, not the EVOLVING of life.

Actually the evidence for evolution comes from the world around you and the diversity of life we see.

Remember that the process of evolution differs from the theory of evolution:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Now, can you tell me what the theory of evolution (TOE) is that makes your impression of the fossil record a problem?

Theories are based on facts, not wishful thinking or guesses. As far as I know there is no known instance of creation happening -- do you have one?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 991 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 7:21 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1021 of 1163 (795574)
12-14-2016 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 994 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 7:54 AM


Re: Evolution has theory, no evidence
The evidence shows fully formed organisms suddenly appearing. ...

No, the evidence shows all organisms are essentially fully formed, as would be expected from the theory and the evidence that supports the theory.

Because of the sketchiness necessary in the fossil record, due to the random formation of fossils, all individuals "appear suddenly" -- we don't see their growth or development.

Your phrasing is absurd unless you expect critters that are half one form and half another -- an old creationist pratt that bears no resemblance to evolutionary science or theory.

... but the transitionary fossils are all hidden away in niches or never even fossilised. For EVERY organism through EVERY geological period these transitions are missing. ...

False. We have many examples of intermediates (a more appropriate term) and in fact every fossil is intermediate between ancestors and descendants. The homologies show the patterns of heredity.

The only actual evidence is of clades, which is exactly what creationists expect, an adaptive variety formed from an original organism.

Except that there is no evidence of clades that don't have predecessors in larger clades, evidence that contradicts separation of kinds into distinct clades unrelated to others.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 994 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 7:54 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 1114 of 1163 (795747)
12-15-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by mindspawn
12-14-2016 3:29 PM


Your straw man is not how evolution works
Hi Mindspawn, it becomes increasingly obvious that you are arguing against a straw man rather than evolutionary theory. I have asked you to provide a statement of what you think the Theory of Evolution is, a request that you have ignored as far as I can see. My feeling is that you don't really have a concrete concept that you can articulate, and this hampers your arguments.

quote:
Your phrasing is absurd unless you expect critters that are half one form and half another -- an old creationist pratt that bears no resemblance to evolutionary science or theory

Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. Definitely. ...

Evolution occurs in populations not in individuals, so there is no prediction from evolution of have an individual fossil be part one species and part another, rather that the whole population would be a group of interbreeding generally similar appearing individuals. At any point in time they would be considered a species.

quote:
How does one "prove a transition" in your eyes? What evidence does it take?

(Message 1022): This is a fair question. It would take a number of small changes over time with absolute consistency in all features until a completely different organism is in view. ...

And what in your mind is a "completely different organism"?

... If for example various apes over time show slight changes in cranium capacity, upright stance, reduced tree dwelling features, arm/leg ratios, pelvis ratio, reduced feet/toe use etc etc in a logical sequence this would be convincing. ...

So, for instance, we have the fossil record of Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


Because evolution occurs in populations, some individuals would fit with previous populations and some with later populations as the whole population transitions from an early set of characteristics to a later set of characteristics.

Here we also see the population dividing into two daughter populations that then become reproductively isolated (cease to share DNA) -- ie evidence that this evolution trend produces a new species.

The larger species likely spent more time (was more successful) on the ground and the smaller species likely spent more time (was more successful) in the upper branches as they diverged, thus they occupied different habitats within the ecosystem while co-existing in the ecosystem.

... If any one feature shows a huge backward jump, then it has to be eliminated from the evolutionary sequence as merely a completely separate species. For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans. It is an irrelevant species unrelated to the others.

The variation in pelvis size within the current human population should show you how absurd your argument is.

Message 1031: Sure it can shrink too. The point is that any large jumps in the opposite direction of the required transition eliminate that organism from the so-called sequence. It then becomes illogical guess work rather than evidence. ...

Again, this is your straw man, not actual evolutionary theory. There is NO "direction of the required transition". Dawkins describes evolution as a "drunken walk" as there is no goal that it is working towards, all it does is work for being successful at surviving and breeding in the ecology as it changes around the breeding population.

This is why "intermediates" is a better term because it just says the (B) is between (A) and (C), while "transitionals" gives a mistaken impresion that getting to (C) from (A) is a purpose, a goal.

Again, looking at Pelycodus above we see the populations gradually increasing in size until the split, when one population becomes smaller, more in the range of the original species. To the biologist both branches are evolving to fit their habitats.

Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. Definitely. This is not absurd, it is EXACTLY what one would expect from evolutionary theory. ...

Nope, it is what you expect from your straw man view of evolution. No biologist expects a half duck and half crocodile, and would actually be shocked to find such a fossil.

... This concept that all change is hidden is merely an excuse from evolutionists for the lack of discovered transitions. ...

Every individual fossil is an intermediate between a previous population and a later populations (or extinction). Every one. Just as every living individual of every species on earth is an intermediate between their ancestors and their descendants ... unless they lack descendants (and their individual lineage is in danger of going extinct).

Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. ...

What biologists expect are populations that are intermediate between ancestor populations and descendant populations, not individuals within a population, and that these populations would show features in the process of evolving from one form to the next.

The features that aren't changing would be homologous, while those that are evolving would be derived from earlier features in a gradual process.

Your claim is that these intermediate populations are just different fully formed species, but let's look at this in more detail:

quote:
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES

The mammals are believed to have evolved from a class of Permian and Triassic reptiles known as therapsids. Taxonomically, mammals are distinguished by a number of features, the most obvious of which are hair (even such aquatic mammals as whales and dolphins still retain bristly hairs in their skin), and the presence of mammary glands which secrete milk, used to nourish the young. Neither of these structures is preserved in the fossil record, but fortunately, mammals can also be distinguished by a number of skeletal characteristics (particularly in the skull and teeth). In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.

Paleontologists point out that the therapsids possessed many of the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals:

"In advanced forms, the skull was intermediate in type between that of a primitive reptile and a mammal; many of the bones absent in mammals were on their way toward reduction or were already lost. A small third eye was still generally present in the top of the skull, but its opening was a tiny one." (Romer, 1967, p. 226)

"The differentiation of the teeth progressed in the therapsids to high levels of development, with the advanced genera showing sharply contrasted incisors, canines, and cheek teeth, which in some of these reptiles were of complex form, often with accessory cusps or broad crowns. In many therapsids, the occipital condyle became double, as in the mammals." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 118)

"In many respect, the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 127)

The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. Thus, it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another, freeing up the rest of these bones to form the auditory ossicles in the mammalian middle ear. ...

... The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian:

"Probainognathus, a small cynodont reptile from the Triassic sediments of Argentina, shows characters in the skull and jaws far advanced toward the mammalian condition. Thus it had teeth differentiated into incisors, a canine and postcanines, a double occipital condyle and a well-developed secondary palate, all features typical of the mammals, but most significantly the articulation between the skull and the lower jaw was on the very threshhold between the reptilian and mammalian condition. The two bones forming the articulation between skull and mandible in the reptiles, the quadrate and articular respectively, were still present but were very small, and loosely joined to the bones that constituted the mammalian joint . . . Therefore in Probainognathus there was a double articulation between skull and jaw, and of particular interest, the quadrate bone, so small and so loosely joined to the squamosal, was intimately articulated with the stapes bone of the middle ear. It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229)

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. Since the determining characteristic of a mammal in the fossil record is the structure of the jaw bone and joint, all of the therapsids up to the Morganucodonts are classified as reptiles, and all those after that are considered to be mammals. As Romer puts it, "We arbitrarily group the therapsids as reptiles (we have to draw a line somewhere) but were they alive, a typical therapsid probably would seem to us an odd cross between a lizard and a dog, a transitional type between the two great groups of backboned animals." (Romer, 1967, p. 227)


So we have clear evidence of populations evolving gradually from reptile to mammal, including a set of intermediate populations with double hinged jaws, each one intermediate in form and features between ancestral populations and descendant populations.

Now before you say these are separate species that "appear suddenly fully formed," you have some additional things to consider:

  1. Look back up at Pelycodus and
  2. notice that the fossils are in stratigraphic layers that represent time, older at the bottom, younger at the top, but also that
  3. they are in the same location geographically.
  4. so they are connected in both time and space.
  5. To be descendant populations they would have occur in a continuous time and location path.
  6. To be special creation of fully formed new species there is no requirement for continuous time and location between them and other species. They could happen anywhere, anytime.
  7. Pelycodus shows a continuous path in time and space, population after population after population after population,
  8. ... just as evolution predicts, and not as special creation predicts.
  9. Now consider Therapsidae,
  10. where again we see the fossils again ordered in time and space with more ancient forms and features being found in older strata and more derived forms and features being found in newer strata ...
  11. ... in the same general geographic location, connected in time and space, and that
  12. each intermediate population falls between older less derived ancestor population and later more derived descendant populations, ...
  13. ... just as evolution predicts, and not as special creation predicts.

Now please notice that I say "as evolution predicts" -- this is because the fossil record is not the theory of evolution, or the evidence for it (we already have that in abundance from the nested hierarchies for the clades of life around us, and reinforced by the entirely separate but equally convincing evidence of DNA nested hierarchies), but rather each and every fossil is a test of the theory.

These tests keep validating the theory by providing the evidence that the theory predicts.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1023 by mindspawn, posted 12-14-2016 3:29 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1115 by edge, posted 12-15-2016 4:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 1121 of 1163 (795800)
12-16-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1117 by Granny Magda
12-15-2016 7:45 PM


clades vs kinds
... As a matter of fact, all of the most severe dressings down that I've had on this board have come from other evolutionists.

Indeed, and that is part of the ongoing learning process that I value here.

By the way, you keep using that word "clades". I do not think it means what you think it means. Evidence of clades is evidence of evolution. Clades are groupings based upon the notion of evolutionary inter-relatedness.

Since a clade consists of an organism and all of its evolutionary descendants, it is quite absurd to talk of "changes beyond a clade" and to claim that clades are a prediction of creationism is just too funny.

Curiously, I have argued that the concept of clades is the closest parallel in evolutionary terminology to the creationist concept of kinds -- each reproduce after their own kind. A member of the wolf clade will always be a member of the wolf clade and not become a member of another clade via evolution. This is generally viewed by creationists as "micro" evolution.

This is a point on which we can agree while pointing out where we disagree:

  • there is no clade I am aware of that doesn't have evidence of an ancestor in a larger clade, as would be required by special creation, and thus the evidence from clades is for evolution and not creation, and
  • there is no restriction on what may evolve within a clade, and that this is best demonstrated by convergent evolution, and by mimicry, where members of different clades become similar in appearance and behavior:

    quote:
    Analogy: Squirrels and Sugar Gliders

    Beyond being cute and cuddly, flying squirrels and sugar gliders have many striking similarities: big eyes, a white belly, and a thin piece of skin stretched between their arms and legs, a trait which helps them "glide" and remain stable when leaping from high places.

    But sugar gliders and flying squirrels also have some key differences. Most importantly, they reproduce and bear their babies in fundamentally different ways:

    Flying squirrels and sugar gliders are only distantly related. So why do they look so similar then? Their gliding "wings" and big eyes are analogous structures. Natural selection independently adapted both lineages for similar lifestyles: leaping from treetops (hence, the gliding "wings") and foraging at night (hence, the big eyes).


  • "Macro" evolution (*) occurs within clades via "micro" evolution and divergence from common ancestors.

So while Diportodontia is a different clade from Rodentia, and it is a member of the marsupial mammal clade and not the placental mammal clade they both are members of the mammal clade ... there IS a common ancestor population they evolved from, (and we can go back further) ... BUT while each have not evolved "out of their (Diportodontia, Rodentia) clades" they have arrived at a similar point through selection and mutations.

Evolution is not limited by dogma.

Enjoy

(*) the formation of nested hierarchies (clades within clades) and new species that diverge from their common ancestor and sister species

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1117 by Granny Magda, posted 12-15-2016 7:45 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1123 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2016 5:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 1140 of 1163 (795848)
12-18-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1123 by mike the wiz
12-17-2016 5:47 PM


common ancestors for flying squirrel, sugar glider and pelycodus ... and ...
Hi Mike,

A couple of notes in addition to what Mod said. Length is mostly a function of laying out the lineages rather than my normal verbosity .

"There is a common ancestor they evolved from"

The problem is, can't the clade, can't the cladogram exist, WITHOUT this ancestor?

It is more accurate to talk about a common ancestor population, because populations evolve rather than individuals, and populations can split to form daughter populations that can become reproductively isolated and then evolve differently in different ecologies.

Have they found this ancestor? If so can you name it?

There was a wonderful website called Paleos that linked the evolutionary natural history and you could surf up and down through the intermediate fossils and derived fossils. It has been undergoing reconstruction and I have not spent time on it recently, but I looked up "therapsid" (as the ancestor population to all mammals, as discussed above in my post Message 1114) and I was able to find these links:

quote:
Paleos: Therapsida

Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
THERAPSIDA
|-Raranimus
`+-Biarmosuchia
`-+--Dinocephalia
| |--Anteosauria
| `--Tapinocephalia
`--+--Anomodontia
| |--Venyukovioidea
| `--Dicynodontia
`--Theriodontia
|--Gorgonopsia
`--+--Therocephalia
`--CYNODONTIA

... Their evolutionary success was unfortunately cut short by the end Permian extinction event, and although a number of lineages made it through to the Triassic, their protomammalian metabolism put them at a disadvantage in a hot dry Triassic world far more suited to sauropsid reptiles, and increasingly dominated by thecodontian archosaurs. They survived by becoming progressively smaller and more mammal-like, except for the dicynodonts which if anything became larger. By the time the dinosaurs had appeared, the therapsids had given rise to the first mammals, although one lineage of rodent-like, non-mammalian therapsids, the tritylodonts, would continue to the Middle Cretaceous. MAK120127


It appears this site is still being reconstructed, but some parts are working. This site should certainly give Mindspawn pause in his claims regarding a lack of intermediates.

Note that the "abbreviated dendrogram" is all hyperlinked so you can click on {`--CYNODONTIA} and move to

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
CYNODONTIA
|--Procynosuchidae
`--+--Galesauridae
`--Eucynodontia
|--Cynognathia
| |--Cynognathidae
| `--Tritylodontidae
`--Probainognathia
|--Tritheledontidae
`--MAMMALIAFORMES

Clicking on {`--MAMMALIAFORMES} takes me to an "under construction" page, but reentering the site with "mammaliformes" takes me to:

quote:
Mammaliformes: Overview

Mammaliformes Cladogram
...
Mammaliformes
|--Allotheria
| |--Haramiyida
| `--Multituberculata
| |--Paulchoffatiidae
| `--+--Gondwanatheria
| `--Cimolodonta
`--+--Morganucodontidae
`--+--Docodonta
| |--Megazostrodontidae
| `--Docodontidae
`--+--Hadrocodium
`--Symmetrodonta
|--Kuehneotheriidae
|
MAMMALIA

Note that this is a newer page, as it uses the term "Cladogram" rather than "Dendrogram", and we are back to the lineage in question.

You can also see "Hadrocodium" here (Mods common ancestor in his response).

Clicking on {MAMMALIA} takes you to

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
MAMMALIA
|--Australosphenida
| |--Ausktribosphenidae
| `--Monotremata
`--+--Triconodonta
`--+--Spalacotheroidea
`--Cladotheria
|--Dryolestoidea
`--Theria
|
|--METATHERIA
`--EUTHERIA

Metatheria are the marsupials branch, and Eutheria are the placental mammals branch. Note also the branch to Monotremata under Mammalia, and these are the monotremes (like the platypus and echidna) ancestors.

Clicking on {`--Theria} takes me to another "under construction" page, and reentering the site with "Theria" takes me to:

quote:
Theria

Theria: Deltatherium, Kielantherium. LCA wallabies and Wallace.

Range: Fr mK.

Phylogeny: Cladotheria: Dryolestoidea + *: Metatheria + Eutheria.

Characters: No quadrate-articular jaw articulation; all post-dentary bones incorporated into middle ear; tribosphenic molar; jaw opened by digastric muscle (ennervated by Vth & VIIth nerves); $ facial muscles (derived from neck constrictor colli, VIIth nerve); $ spiral cochlea; auditory pinna (external ear); $ able to seal pharynx with tongue and/or epiglottis (for suckling, swallowing by mouthfuls); scapula with supraspinous fossa; loss or fusion of coracoid elements; scapulae move independently around its dorsal border, held in place only by muscles and soft tissues of "scapular sling"; $ supracoracoideus (humeral protractor) reorganized as infraspinatus and supraspinatus which stabilize humerus; $ crurotarsal ankle joint with flexion between tibia and astragalus, astragalus proximal to calcaneum, and gastrocnemius inserting on calcaneal heel; $ mammary glands with nipples (derived from apocrine or sebaceous glands); $ viviparity, with no egg shell; separate anal & urogenital openings; skin with free nerve endings (pain receptor?), Pacinian corpuscles, growing hair, sebaceous, apocrine (and eccrine glands in some specialized forms), and numerous neuroreceptors for touch, temperature, stretch, etc.


These are the descriptive traits for the common ancestor population to marsupial and placental mammals.

Now we can also work from the other end, starting with "flying squirrel" on wikipedia:

quote:
Flying Squirrel

Flying squirrels (scientifically known as Pteromyini or Petauristini) are a tribe of 44 species of squirrels in the family Sciuridae. They are not capable of flight in the same way as birds or bats but are able to glide from one tree to another with the aid of a patagium, a furry, parachute-like membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle. Their long tail provides stability in flight. Anatomically they are very similar to other squirrels but have a number of adaptations to suit their life style; their limb bones are longer and their hand, foot bones and distal vertebrae are shorter. While flying they are able to steer and exert control over their glide path with their limbs and tail.

Molecular studies have shown that flying squirrels are monophyletic and originated some 18–20 million years ago ...

Scientific classification: 
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Clade: Synapsida
Class: Mammalia
Family: Sciuridae
Subfamily: Sciurinae
Tribe: Pteromyini

and a quick return to Paleos gives this (excerpted):

quote:
Eutheria
|--Erinaceomorpha
`--+--Muridae
`--+--+--+--Thryonomyidae
| | `--Caviidae
| `--+--Sciuridae

Linking us back to Eutheria. Likewise, we can also work from the other end, starting with "sugar glider" on wikipedia:

quote:
Sugar glider

The sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) is a small, omnivorous, arboreal, and nocturnal gliding possum belonging to the marsupial infraclass. The common name refers to its preference for sugary nectarous foods and ability to glide through the air, much like a flying squirrel.[5] They have very similar appearance and habits to the flying squirrel despite not being closely related, an example of convergent evolution.[6] The scientific name, Petaurus breviceps, translates from Latin as "short-headed rope-dancer", a reference to their canopy acrobatics.[7]

Scientific classification: 
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Marsupialia
Order: Diprotodontia
Family: Petauridae
Genus: Petaurus

Going back to Paleos again we don't find {Petauridae} but we do find {Diprotodontia}

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram

MAMMALIA
|--EUTHERIA
Metatheria
|--Ameridelphia
| |--Didelphimorphia
| `--Paucituberculata
`--Australidelphia
|--Microbiotheria
`--+--+--Dasyuromorphia
| `--Notoryctemorphia
`--+--Peramelina
`--Diprotodontia

Diprotodontia: kangaroos, potoos, wombats, koalas, etc.

Range: fr upOc of Aus.

Phylogeny: Australidelphia::: Peramelina + *.

Characters: Herbivorous & omniverous forms plus Thylacoleo. Jaw shortened; diprotodont (not surprisingly) = large pair of procumbent incisors on lower jaw; 3 pairs of upper incisors; no lower canines; heavy tail common; elongated hind limbs; frequent syndactyly (second and third digits on the feet fused up to the base of the claws, with the claws not being fused); hallux absent; males do not show evidence of mammary glands; jumping locomotion very common; mostly herbivorous, with some insectivores (plus Thylacoleo).


Going back to wikipedia and following the link for {Petauridae}:

quote:
Petauridae

The family Petauridae includes 11 medium-sized possum species: four striped possums, six species of wrist-winged gliders in the genus Petaurus and Leadbeater's possum, which has only vestigial gliding membranes. Most of the wrist-winged gliders are native to Australia, most of the striped possums (genus Dactylopsila) to New Guinea, but some members of each are found on both sides of the Torres Strait.

All petaurids have obvious facial markings, a well-defined dorsal stripe, very large lower front incisors, and four-cusped molars. Despite their distinctive appearance, petaurids are closely related to the ringtail possums (family Pseudocheiridae) and are grouped together with them to form the superfamily Petauroidea.

Genus Petaurus

• Northern glider, Petaurus abidi
• Yellow-bellied glider, Petaurus australis
• Biak glider, Petaurus biacensis
Sugar glider, Petaurus breviceps
• Mahogany glider, Petaurus gracilis
• Squirrel glider, Petaurus norfolcensis


So the sugar glider is one of 7 gliding possums. Continuing with wikipedia to Diprotodontia to link then back to the Paleos data:

quote:
Diprotodontia

Order DIPROTODONTIA

  • Genus †Brachalletes
  • Genus †Koalemas
  • Genus †Sthenomerus
  • Genus †Nimbadon
  • Family †Maradidae
  • Suborder Vombatiformes
    • Family Phascolarctidae: koala (one species)
    • Family Vombatidae: wombats (three species)
    • Family †Ilariidae
    • Family †Diprotodontidae
    • Family †Palorchestidae
    • Family †Thylacoleonidae (marsupial lions)[5]
    • Family †Wynyardiidae

  • Suborder Phalangeriformes
    • Superfamily Phalangeroidea
      • Family Phalangeridae: brushtail possums and cuscuses
      • Family Burramyidae: pygmy possums

    • Superfamily Petauroidea
      • Family Tarsipedidae: honey possum
      • Family Petauridae (striped possum, Leadbeater's possum, yellow-bellied glider, sugar glider, mahogany glider, squirrel glider)
      • Family Pseudocheiridae: ringtailed possums and allies
      • Family Acrobatidae: (feathertail glider and feather-tailed possum)

  • Suborder Macropodiformes
    • Family †Balbaridae : basal quadrupedal kangaroos
    • Family Macropodidae: kangaroos, wallabies and allies
    • Family Potoroidae: bettongs, potaroos, and rat-kangaroos
    • Family Hypsiprymnodontidae: musky rat-kangaroo

† means extinct family, genus or species.


And there we are with the lineage of descent of the flying squirrel and the sugar glider, back to their common ancestor {Theria} (and also all the way back to the first mammals at {Therapsida}).

A similar lineage can be shown for Pelycodus discussed in Message 1114, with the added note that we can go up from Pelycodus to Adapiformes and their modern day descendants via the Paleos site:

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--+--Adapiformes
`--+--Darwinius
`--Haplorhini
|--Tarsiiformes
`--Anthropoidea
|--Platyrrhini
`--Hominoidea

and clicking on Hominoidea gives us:

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Hominoidea
|--Hylobatidae
`--Hominidae
|--Ponginae
`--Homininae

and clicking on Homininae gives us:

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Homininae
|--Samburupithecus
|--Nakalipithecus
`--+--Gorillini
| |--Chororapithecus
| `--Gorilla
`--+--Sahelanthropus
`--+--Pan
`--Hominini

And clicking on Hominini gives us:

quote:
Abbreviated Dendrogram
...
`--Hominini
|--Ardipithecus
`--+--Australopithecus afarensis
|?--Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis)
`--+--Australopithecus africanus
`--+--Paranthropus
| |?--Paranthropus aethiopicus
| `--+--Paranthropus robustus
| `--Paranthropus boisei
`--+--Kenyanthropus
`--Homo

eg ... Us. Linked to apadiforms by descent from common ancestor populations ...

As Dr A says, we have the fossils, we win.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : bold, linkages


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1123 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2016 5:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1143 of 1163 (795854)
12-18-2016 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1123 by mike the wiz
12-17-2016 5:47 PM


analogous vs homologous vs special creation
Think about it - two creatures identical but one marsupial and one placental, logically speaking, should falsify evolution.

Similar but not identical.

Curiously the webpage these images came from was discussing analogy and the difference to homology, and these critters are used as an example of analogous development:

quote:
Analogy: Squirrels and Sugar Gliders

Beyond being cute and cuddly, flying squirrels and sugar gliders have many striking similarities: big eyes, a white belly, and a thin piece of skin stretched between their arms and legs, a trait which helps them "glide" and remain stable when leaping from high places.

But sugar gliders and flying squirrels also have some key differences. Most importantly, they reproduce and bear their babies in fundamentally different ways:

  • Flying squirrels are placental mammals. Placental mammals spend a long time developing inside the mother's body being nourished by a placenta before they are born.
  • Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals, like kangaroos. Marsupial mammals may only spend a short time developing inside the mother's body and are very tiny when born. After birth, a baby marsupial crawls into its mother's pouch and is nourished by her milk as it continues to grow and develop.

There are also key differences in teeth, skull and the rest of the skeleton, differences that are detailed on the Paleos site for marsupial and plancental mammals. (see Message 1140).

Another example they give is

quote:
Analogy: Of Shrimp and Snails

Barnacles and limpets (shown below) have many superficial similarities: both are small creatures with conical shells and can be found in the ocean on rocky shores.

But the similarities end there. Inside their shells, they are very different:


Also see

quote:
Homologies and analogies

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters — characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature — so the presence of four limbs is a homology.

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

Bird and bat wings are analogous — that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they have both experienced natural selection that shaped them to play a key role in flight. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.


Convergent evolution disproves two common creationist concepts:

  1. that there is a limit to what microevolution can accomplish (dogs will always be dogs and not some other critter),

    Because starting from two entirely different lineages very similar species are developed via mutation and selection,

    and

  2. special creation, that each new species is created fully formed rather than descendant from other nearby species,

    When confronted with closely related species and shown the degree of similarity, the creationist claim is that god/s reused a template they had already developed.

    This argument is contradicted by and invalidated by convergent evolution, where these "templates" were NOT used, ... with no explanation for this failure.

Think about it - two creatures identical but one marsupial and one placental, logically speaking, should falsify evolution.

While special creation would just copy and paste?

When we look deeper we see that the differences outweigh the similarities, and that those differences are linked by homologies to ancestor populations that were more different between the two lineages until you get back to their common ancestor population, as demonstrated in Message 1140 in detail.

Evolution theory explains both the similarities between related species and the convergence of species where selection is for a similar "solution" to the ecological challenges.

We can also think of fossils as embedded in a matrix of time and space, a 4D supercube, and the critical element in this view is that for species (A) to evolve from species (B) they must be located closely nearby in both time and space. This holds for all species, so you have to be able to link one to the other with both location and time.

Special creation has no such limitation, and thus species can appear anywhere amidst totally unrelated species. The flying squirrel could just appear in Australia, the sugar glider could just appear in North America, or even Africa.

As you can see from Message 1140 we can draw those lines, those links, just as we saw detailed in Message 1114 for Pelycodus from Pelycodus ralstoni to Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

And we can also detail how certain traits change while others remain relatively constant during the evolution of new traits, just as we saw described in Message 1114 for Therapsids with the evolution from reptile jaw to double jaw to mammalian jaw, with the time and space linkages provided in Message 1140 from Synapsid to Therapsid to Cynodont to Mammaliform to Mammalia.

There is no credible explanation from Special Creation for the geological/temporally ephemeral existence of these species to appear and then disappear once the mammals came to be, to have their brief moment upon the stage of life, except for the recording their place in the evolutionary processes that actually occurred in the past.

One special creation would be improbable, two twice as improbable, and the improbability grows astronomical as we follow it from reptile to sugar glider or flying squirrel with the detailed lineage in Message 1140 through dozens of stages.

Note that a prediction from the 4D supercube model was used to find Tiktaalik:

quote:
... To find a transitional fossil between land animals and fish, we start by looking at the very first tetrapods to show up in the fossil record. Then, we look for fish which had a similar pattern of bones in their fins as the tetrapods had in their limbs.

STEP 1: We used the distribution of known fossils to determine where there was a gap in the fossil record

... We know the lobe-finned fish are from 390-380 million year old rocks. The first tetrapods appear around 363 million years ago. Common sense tells us that the transitional form must have arisen 380-363 million years ago.

STEP 2: Determine the age of the rocks the transitional fossil should be in

We look to geologic maps of the world to help us find areas with rocks of the right type and the right age which have not been explored yet.

STEP 3: Find where the right rocks are at the surface and exposed

We know that lobe-finned fish and the first tetrapods lived in freshwater streams because of the sediments we find them in. So we look for freshwater deposits, not marine. We also have determined we should look in rocks between 380 and 363 million years old, in the Middle Devonian.

It just so happens that of the three Devonian freshwater deposits in North America, only one was completely unexplored: the Canadian Arctic. So the team set their sites on organizing an expedition. That was in 1999.

STEP 4: Plan an expedition to the most promising site!

... All they found were marine fossils. So the following years, they moved east until they located the right sediments. In 2000, they found a site laden with interesting fish pieces and began digging. A wealth of complete fish skeletons started to emerge. Each year they returned and dug a little deeper. Ultimately, the site produced Tiktaalik in 2004. Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had predicted the existence of a creature like this all along. We only needed to do some detective work to find it. Another affirmation of our theory!


Located the right time and place in the 4D supercube and voila: the intermediate fossil between fish and quadruped is found ....

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : /url


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1123 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2016 5:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1146 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2016 6:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1147 by NoNukes, posted 12-18-2016 6:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020