|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,506 Year: 6,763/9,624 Month: 103/238 Week: 20/83 Day: 3/0 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I thought, "real scientists" use the term, "hydraulic sorting"? But Gould the non-creationist, used the term, "hydrological", so this is an example of a double-standard fallacy I have astutely spotted, so naming it "poor reading comprehension" I imagine even the evolutionists must see is a ridiculous use of epithets. This is like saying that because I can prove I am 6 foot 10 inches tall that I am, "a midget". Obviously there is nothing wrong with my reading and everything wrong with your comment. Why not simply admit you made a mistake for once in your life, and didn't know what you were talking about. Your poor reading comprehension continues to embarrass you. I said that scientists tend to prefer the phrase "hydraulic sorting" to the phrase "hydrological sorting" I did not say that they prefer the word "hydraulic" to the word "hydrological" under all circumstances; they use the latter word where it is proper to do so --- for example, when it is not qualifying the word "sorting".
I understand that according to evolution, wings in birds, and bats would be examples of analogous structures but the pentadactyl limb would be examples of homologous structures. Can you please now explain where I have made an error ... Wings in birds and bats are both homologous and analogous, obviously. But it was your apparent belief that concepts such as homology and homoplasy render evolution unfalsifiable that made me think that you were deficient in understanding.
Lol. No arrogance here from Dr.A. then. I guess it was Moses I learnt it from, by reading Genesis. Who knows where you get your ideas from? If I was asked to speculate, I might allude to the back end of one of the larger domesticated Bovidae.
The Ichthyosaur though homoplastic to a dolphin, had more of a barrel-like body with a whip-tail, the use of the vertebrae BY DESIGN made it a slow swimmer with the tail being more useful, from what I read. It seems highly reasonable that there would be support for the tail, because fish are not built the same. So you are arguing that evolution should give an ichthyosaur fish features and should not. Heads if it's homoplastic fish-features, evolution wins, tails if it's NOT fish features like the tail bone, evolution wins again, because evolution predicts both. If you thought about it for a few seconds, you would see that hydrological factors impose selective pressures on the external but not the internal form of an animal. So we expect fish, dolphin, ichthyosaurs to have similar streamlining, but not to be more internally similar than is necessitated by their common vertebrate ancestry.
LOL! Thus essentially you are reasoning in a circle. That some features are because of divergence, but the features are the prediction of divergence, which evidence it, but then the evidence becomes the prediction, pointing back to divergence, which points to the features, which points to divergence, which points to the features. I can accept that if evolution were true there may be homologies, but it counts as falsification of evolutionary divergence if there are homologies you re-brand, "homoplasies". After all, a marsupial isn't in the same clade as a placental, so it's a matter of picking and choosing which type of evolution isn't it. If there are homoplasies that break evolution, you re-brand them convergent evolution. You haven't answered my challenge which is a logical one. If we find ANY new creature, how do we falsify evolution? If we can call some features "unique" such as the pelican spider's head shape, or "homoplastic" or, "homologous", since it seems none of those things can falsify evolution then that covers heads, tails and the side of the coin. Evolution would be falsified by finding a greater degree of homology than could be explained by common ancestry: for example if the bill of the duck-billed platypus was in fact identical to the bill of a duck, or if bats, in other respects being mammals, had wings just like birds. (There are of course lots of other potential ways to falsify evolution, but this seems the most relevant to the errors expressed in your post.) --- I note that you have still not mustered up the courage to approach the actual topic. Perhaps in your next post you will overcome this timidity, but I shall not be holding my breath. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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: Also see
quote: Convergent evolution disproves two common creationist concepts:
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: 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, : /urlby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is it parsimonious to explain the general stasis of forms by invoking millions on non-existent transitional species? Or is it more parsimonious to explain designer-necessity as a real life problem for intelligently designed things, WITHOUT invoking millions of entities? It is parsimonious to explain "the general stasis of forms" as something creationists have made up. This explanation involves the postulation of no new nor unobserved entities or mechanisms, since creationists observably make stuff up all the time.
So if I have a bat with echolocation, and an oil bird with echolocation and a whale with echolocation, is it there by evolution simply by the assertion it was converged upon by evolution, or is the feature there because of design-necessity, which also explains why all of the intermediate forms for oil birds, bats, and whales, are conspicuously absent. Since they are not all absent, the "creationists-made-that-up" hypothesis is once more superior.
That's all I have to say for now at EvC forum. You're going to run away without addressing the topic at all?
I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours. I will concede that evading the topic and running away will cause you less embarrassment than sticking around and discussing it. But you would embarrass yourself still less by not posting at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I precisely PLAN my measure of activity so as it favours my position rather than yours. In short, you raise questions and issues when you post. But you don't stick around for too much discussion that would disfavor your position. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I agree with most of your excellent post, but I see the particular point you make here a bit differently.
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. The quoted argument argument has a weakness common to nearly all arguments that "God would not have done it that way". In essence most (and probably all) such arguments are straw men because for the most part, the typical creationist does not, and more importantly, need not make specific arguments about how God did it. Why should a creationist favor the idea that God had a wing template that he used whenever he wanted animals to fly, or an echolocation template for bats and dolphins? God is all powerful,with infinite resources at his command, and might use any route to make an animal fly. Convergent evolution really does not disprove creation so much as c.e., and the evidence for convergent evolution do disarm one particular creationist arguments against evolution. Let's recall that the conclusion regarding evolution as being the theory of the origin of species is not a proof, but is instead arrived at in the same was as are other conclusions. Namely by a process of verification and falsification and not by eliminating of special creation and other explanations as a possibility. In fact such elimination is impossible on the scale necessary to constitute a proof. Obviously, the evidence does rule out certain creationist paths, but not all. The fact that a particularly silly creationist argument is ruled on is of little consequence. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
d.p.
Edited by NoNukes, : Server reported that post contained no data, and I repeated post instead of checking. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
I think that the point is less "God would not have done it that way" than "there is no particular reason for God to have done it that way" - or at least it should be. And showing examples where God clearly did not do it that way emphasises the point.
It is not a refutation of creationism, it is the assertion that evolution is the superior explanation because it does provide strong reasons for thinking that it ought to be that way.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
mike the wiz writes: The problem is, can't the clade, can't the cladogram exist, WITHOUT this ancestor? The problem for creationism is that if there are no common ancestors then there is no reason we should see clades at all. A creator can mix and match any types of characteristics as the creator sees fit. You can have species with feathers, mammary glands, and gills. You can have other species with fur, flow through lungs, and a forward facing retina. When we get to genetics the the problem grows even worse for creationism. There is absolutely no reason that a creator would need to change introns more than exons for different species, and there is no reason why introns should diverge at a faster rate than exons when compared to morphological differences. There is no reason why an orthologous ERV shared by many primate species should have more divergence between its 5' and 3' long terminal repeats than an orthologous ERV shared by just humans and chimps. There is no reason that the phylogeny of genes like Cytochrome C should match the phylogeny based on morphology. There is absolutely no reason why we should see this matching branching structure of shared derived features and genetics if creationism true. Only common ancestry combined with evolution can explain it.
But what if the actual conclusion is that God as a Creator, simply does not obey any rules. Then why do we see matching nested hierarchies?
The most amusing example of an analogous feature is the Ichthyosaur, especially when we hear Gould himself admit to the 1-in-a-billion odds, it seems, and that is the problem, the coincidence-list for evolution seems to be astronomical, some forty convergent types of eyeballs I heard from Dawkins. "This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothingthe ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor - Gould.
How strange then that the creator would give dolphins a fore limb that has more in common with humans than it does with sharks.
It is the human and dolphin forelimbs that share homology, not other fish species. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
replaced by Message 1153 updating the ichthyosaur evolutionary story.
Not so much a quote mine as a miss-attribution in a creationist\IDologists writing. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1964 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The problem for creationism is that if there are no common ancestors then there is no reason we should see clades at all.
Interesting point. If all creatures were created at the same time, why would there be clades? The very existence of clades by definition implies time and that time is manifested in the fossil record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
edge writes: taq writes:
Interesting point. The problem for creationism is that if there are no common ancestors then there is no reason we should see clades at all. If all creatures were created at the same time, why would there be clades? The very existence of clades by definition implies time and that time is manifested in the fossil record. Worse, we have a record of what was created and when it was created and the things mentioned in the records of Creation simply are not in evidence in the fossil record. This is particularly true in all three religions based on the Judaic myths and the different flavors of Creationism that has appeared in those three religions that incorporate the very same creation stories.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Curiously, in looking up this quote
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothingthe ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor - Gould. I find it on ICR: The Intriguing Ichthyosaur--an Evolutionary Fish Story? where it is (correctly) attributed to
quote: While A New Approach to Earth History mistakenly attributes it to Gould, but also took the effort to investigate the issue in more detail:
quote: He goes on to talk about design and miss-atributes the quote:
quote: Meanwhile wikipedia has this
quote: SO ... now we have the actual correct reference, AND that Gould used ichthyosaur as an example of convergent evolution ... So I got a copy of Eight Little Piggies from the library and read the "Bent Out of Shape" chapter, and I can confirm that Gould did NOT make this statement. The closest I could find was (pg 81):
quote: Later in the chapter (pg 93) he notes that Louis Dollo "argued that the tailbend arose because the two-lobed caudal fin of ichthyosaurs evolved from a skin-fold along the back (source of the dorsal fin as well), which extended itself in a posterior direction to form the upper lobe of the tailfin and then pushed the vertebral column down to form the lower lobe. ... " -- so there is an evolutionary path to the convergence of form, but not to the way the internal structures are modified to achieve that form. Being a predator the selection pressure to perfect the swimming ability as much as possible from the given parts would certainly push the features to optimum location and form. No surprises. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : spby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I must say, that I haven't heard those two arguments from creation believers lately. Hydro sorting, or 'creatures running uphill to escape the Flood'.
Really. Edited by time, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Possibly because there was a lot of evolving after creation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024