|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: All the species in that genus have similar structures. And structures are surely structural - while minor differences are surely superficial. And I must say that I really really don’t think that you’d accept a small difference between trilobite Families as “structural” rather than “superficial” - even if the differing trait was found in every species in the Family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And you sometimes do a very bad job of that. For example on this thread you argue that creationists should sabotage their idea of Kinds by pretending to believe in fixity of species. Just because you don’t like the idea of speciation actually happening. Why creationists should care so much for your feelings as to deny something even you believe I have no idea. I very much doubt that you have any idea either.
quote: But you don’t care about the truth. You only care about your opinions - right or wrong. It is obvious now that your “structural versus superficial” criterion has no objective basis - any difference between cats and dogs is considered structural, any difference between trilobites is considered superficial. That is not a rational argument, it’s just an extreme and irrational bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
That assessment should be left to the people who are lied about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: If anatomically intermediate fossils were found and if they had a strong tendency to agree with the expectations of evolution it actually would be reasonable to affirm that they are transitionals.
quote: The question then would be whether the actual fossils were consistent with whatever model you produce. I will also note that sheer numbers are not sufficient - the distribution of anatomical features is also important. By my estimation there is no chance that you could produce a model that would actually support your case without making ad hoc assumptions to explain why we see the pattern expected by evolution. The intermediates illustrating the evolution of the mammalian jaw alone would seem highly improbable, even before we take account of the fact that they appear at the expected point in the fossil record.
quote: And we do find a history of evolution - not a random assemblage of features that by pure chance throws up an apparent intermediate here and there without rhyme or reason.
quote: We find possible ancestors for some Cambrian phyla - and certainly for dinosaurs. I can’t speak for the angiosperms.
quote: That is certainly not true. The history of life on Earth is a history of change. You will not find mammals - not even whales - back in the Cambrian, or birds or even sharks, although shark’s teeth are among the more common fossils.
quote: I’d say that it is far worse to ignore even the pattern of transitionals as they are found in the fossil record. That, at least, is rather easier to determine and very telling.
quote: If you have a model which fits the actual evidence - not just guesses about numbers - I would be very surprised.
quote: And how many modern creatures are considered transitional? If it is pure chance then the percentage should be the same for modern life as it is for the fossil record.
quote:Then you shouldn’t have problems producing examples. (Although your claim to logical impossibility is obviously false) However, I think you are greatly underestimating the degrees of freedom available, especially when the analysis goes beyond the superficial. quote: It is easy to make such claims but much harder to back them up. And until you do, you really don’t have much.
quote: And that is a very weird claim when one of the first, famous transitional fossils is archaeopteryx- i’d Say that a quadruped to a bird is at least as impressive. And even stranger when it comes shortly after the discovery of another transitional in the ancestry of whales was reported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: We don’t - and can’t - have perfect predictions. But nonetheless the parent of transitionals is what we would expect of evolution and not what we would expect if they were simply random occurrences.
quote: Of course the pattern is that the transitionals are found where they “ought” to be.
quote: The platypus is consistent with evolution. And a good example of the necessity of studying the anatomy rather than relying on superficial appearances.
quote: There are two very significant points here. First, the existence of a general trend - which does point to evolution. Second the fact that our knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded since Darwin. Darwin did not know anything like as much about it as we do now. And yet the evidence continues to be consistent with evolution.
quote: The fact of a non-random pattern breaks the idea that transitional fossils are mere coincidences as you argue. The fact that the many discoveries since Darwin have confirmed the pattern only make it more clear that it is real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Please explain what makes it the “same order” and how that supports the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faith it is not hard to find examples where you are failing to use your intellect correctly.
Let’s take a gentle example. I will repeat the question I asked in Message 253 quote: Please explain what makes it the “same order” and how that supports the Flood. Can you actually answer that ? Or are you making a foolish error because you haven’t bothered to understand what you are talking about ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well you didn’t make the mistake I expected, but you forgot that the order of the fossil record - which is what you are talking about - can’t be explained by the Flood. So it’s not evidence for the Flood - it’s strong evidence against your version.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You mean you knew that I would point out the fact that the Flood cannot account for the order.
quote: Obviously your ideas about the Flood can be wrong (and are wrong) and there is nothing irrational in the idea of different creatures living at different times. Even Old Earth Creationists accept that.
quote: First, the evidence says that we did get mammals from reptiles. Second, while evolution makes more sense of the order - giving us reasons for the order - even without it we would still have a better explanation than you.
quote: In reality the evidence shows plenty of evolution among the trilobites. The fact that you ignore the evidence doesn’t change that. But thanks for proving that you are wasting your intellect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Your wilful ignorance doesn’t change the fact that trilobites are many, many species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Given the variation in trilobites - as shown in previous discussion - that obviously isn’t the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except that you do that all the time. e.g. Message 535 Try Message 2269. Those two trilobites are certainly NOT obviously the same species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course there is. The pattern of the tree of life is evidence, so are the transitional fossils that have been found.
quote: Show your work, taking into account the transitional fossils which show evidence that the changes occurred.
quote: In reality it is the explanation that fits the evidence. The really ludicrous idea is that a global Flood did it. That really is crazy.
quote: Now there is the mistake I expected you to make when you were talking about the “same rocks” above. You managed to do better that time, but you just can’t stick to the truth. As you obviously know The strata were originally assigned to geological eras based on their fossil contents - where present. Not the sort of rock, because that varies by location. And, of course, there is nothing silly about working out when the material that became the strata was deposited. And again, the type of rock only comes into play where it is relevant through it’s composition or form (e.g. turbidites are deposited rapidly, shales are deposited slowly)
quote: Of course we can. Geologists have been doing it for a long time now. Indeed, they discovered that certain fossils could be a quite reliable guide well before radiometric dating came in.
quote: Except that they are often not as neat as you assume.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words trilobites vary so much that they are obviously not a single species. As you know, wild species are not hugely variable. The variations in domesticated species are created and maintained by selective breeding. And obviously we should work on the basis that trilobites are wild species. The idea that they are a selectively bred domestic species is massively implausible. So, obviously - taking the evidence at face value - there are many species of trilobite. Saying otherwise is just silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No it isn’t. It’s your inability to accept the fact that you are obviously wrong. As I pointed out wild species do not show anything like the range of variation seen in trilobites. It is obvious that trilobites are not a single species. Even to you if you bother to look.
quote: I can guess. But what is your reason for refusing to classify other creatures the same way ? Why the glaring, obvious double standard ? And how can you possibly expect to get away with it ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024