One Question for Evo-Bashers

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: You've had the privilege to already taste a bit of this reanalysis on this forum.

---

Then I am profoundly unconcerned.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
John, I get the colour analogy, but it doesn't cut it. If it were true, we should find 1000's of fossils of reptiles gradually evolving to birds, at the different stages from reptile to fully bird. Instead we find reptile, and we find bird, no in betweens. The fossil record would be one giant "colour spectrum" with gradual in between stages documented, NOT 250,000,000 distinct "colours".

---

Well that is where you have to step out of the ideal and into the practical. Not all things that die fossilize. If it doesn't fossilize we don't dig it up. Thus, the fossil record is imperfect. We don't get the whole spectrum, but only bits and pieces of it. There is nothing anyone can do about this.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by shilohproject:
What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?

​

I heard that stated recently by a paleobotanist. It has a certain intriguing ring to it.

---

Unless, I am misunderstanding you, that is exactly what I have been trying to explain to sonnike. I am not exactly sure what you, or the paleobotanist, means by "not another of the same thing." There really isn't two of the same thing at all. We class things that are very similar, but that doesn't make them strictly the same.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right.

---

1) Not everything that dies fossilizes. This is easily demonstrated. Thus the fossil record is going to have gaps. Period. Unless you, dear PB, can demonstrate that EVERYTHING FOSSILIZES you have no ground on which to stand. Some fossils simply never formed. It is a straightforward and very simple inference. Now we don't know what those fossils look like, so....2) Every baby is born to a parent or parents. This also is easily demonstrated. It happens all around us every day. Another straightforward conclusion is that this has been going on a very long time. We have eggs that are hundreds of million years old, for example.3) Put #1 and #2 together and you realize that the fossils we do have are most likely connected via parent/child relationships.4) Study the morphology of the fossils and you can work out the rough relationships between them.

quote:

---

If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate? ]

---

Misrepresenting Gould now? Erosion doesn't distriminate but shorter time frames as PE postulates, mean fewer fossil remains of the creatures who live during the rapid phases of change.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates.

---

Why do you think erosion discriminates?

quote:

---

It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes.

---

You mean, "It would be great if we had a better fossil record?" Of course it would be better, but we don't have a better record.

quote:

---

Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't.

---

I can't figure out how you can rationally say that erosion discriminates.

quote:

---

O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.

---

Life may have evolved more than once. I tend to think it did, but that it occurred long before we have any record of it. What you propose here isn't a terribly common idea in evolutionary biology, as far as I can tell. So I don't see the point of attacking it.

quote:

---

PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same.

---

PB, one paragraph above you agreed with me that not everything that dies fossilizes. Why are you contradicting yourself just one breath later?

quote:

---

However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.

---

ummm... I am suspicious about that too. But it is, after all, you who keeps saying that such is a fact.

quote:

---

PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation.

---

Yeah, no kidding. It's called science.

quote:

---

I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.

---

inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement or judgement considered true to another whose truth is believed to follow from the formerextrapolation: to infer from values within an observed interval; to project, extend, or expand known data into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of an unknown area.conclusion: a reasoned judgement, an inference; the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises.ummmm..... yeah, I see the differences ?????????????Come on, 'fess up, you were just trying to bluff your way into sounding smart. The words are very nearly synonymous.

quote:

---

PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic!

---

It must suck to get it and then loose it again so quickly.

quote:

---

It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics.

---

Which part do you deny?That children have parents, and parents have parents, and so on and so forth?That this has been the case for a long time?Or that, given the other two, we are going to find, in the fossil record, things that are related to other things?See, given that we observe this parent/child connection and we see it in every extant species on the planet, and given that this has been the case for as long as anyone has been paying attention, it follows that everything in the record is connected by a parent/child chain; even if we don't know what that chain is.This is the rational inference from data. It could be wrong, but over a hundred years has not shown it to be so. This is the inference that you must refute.

quote:

---

You may as well postulate Godidit.

---

That seems to be what you are doing.

quote:

---

PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.

---

Are you joking? You must be joking? Seriously, this is a joke?1) Fossils are identified how? By looking at them and measuring them. IE, the morphology of the bones is examined.2) How something stands, or moves, or flies, is not subject to selective pressure? Come on, PB....

quote:

---

PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it.

---

This is not what you said.

quote:

---

Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm.

---

But actually having data brings the whole thing out of the land 'o makebelieve.

quote:

---

You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?

---

Ok. I can't figure out which part it is you object to.1) Not all things that die fossilize. You agreed earlier, and then you didn't.2) Children have parents.3) #1 and #2 are likely to have been the case in the distant past.Thus, the fossil record is incomplete. Ie, there are gaps.

quote:

---

PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again.

---

ummm.... the theory was designed to fit the data. Damned unethical!!!!

quote:

---

Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist.

---

???????????????????

quote:

---

He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.

---

Reminds me of you.

quote:

---

It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?

---

Yeah, and I drive my car FAST and also SLOW, but not at the same time and not on the same roads. I am very talented.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com{Fixed a quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes.

---

American Scientific AffiliationIt doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.

quote:

---

and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.

---

Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.

---

That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?

quote:

---

PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.

---

And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.

quote:

---

PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?

---

Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved. The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.

---

But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.

---

I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.

quote:

---

PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.

---

Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.

quote:

---

However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.

---

That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?

quote:

---

PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.

---

I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.

quote:

---

Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.

---

Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOLMolecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.

---

So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.

quote:

---

PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.

---

You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.

quote:

---

Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.

---

What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?

quote:

---

PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.

---

No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.

quote:

---

PB: So what?

---

Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!

quote:

---

PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.

---

Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.

quote:

---

Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.

---

Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.

quote:

---

See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).

---

I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.

quote:

---

PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.

---

Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.

quote:

---

Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.

---

Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.

quote:

---

The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).

---

You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.

---

Your interpretation of the data is wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?

---

Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.

quote:

---

PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)

---

With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.

quote:

---

PB: He's a paleontologist.

---

And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.

quote:

---

PB: Where?

---

This part:

quote:

---

PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?

---

Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.
[b]American Scientific Affiliation[/url]It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.

quote:

---

and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.

---

Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.

---

That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?

quote:

---

PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.

---

And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.

quote:

---

PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?

---

Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved. The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.

---

But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.

---

I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.

quote:

---

PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.

---

Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.

quote:

---

However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.

---

That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?

quote:

---

PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.

---

I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.

quote:

---

Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.

---

Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOLMolecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.

---

So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.

quote:

---

PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.

---

You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.

quote:

---

Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.

---

What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?

quote:

---

PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.

---

No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.

quote:

---

PB: So what?

---

Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!

quote:

---

PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.

---

Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.

quote:

---

Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.

---

Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.

quote:

---

See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).

---

I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.

quote:

---

PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.

---

Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.

quote:

---

Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.

---

Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.

quote:

---

The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).

---

You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.

---

Your interpretation of the data is wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?

---

Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.

quote:

---

PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)

---

With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.

quote:

---

PB: He's a paleontologist.

---

And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.

quote:

---

PB: Where?

---

This part:

quote:

---

PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?

---

Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient.

---

Actually it is just common sense that we can't dig up what isn't in the ground.

quote:

---

Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile.

---

Animals don't morph from one form to another like Transformers©. You can't take an ancestral species and a modern species and average them to get the in-betweens. So finding your percentage this and percentage that is silly. Think about this (purely hypothetical): imagine a mouse and then imagine that selection favors longer legs. Eventually, you end up with a tiny rabbit. Then selection favors size, so it grows to the size of a cat, then a large dog, then a kangaroo. At which point is it half-mouse and half-kangaroo-like-thing?

quote:

---

We should be able to have many displays like this in the museums, where people could see the gradual changes as one species changed to another...and then the case would be closed...but that's not what we have, why?

---

You need to visit more museums. This sort of sequence has been worked out for some animal lineages-- horses and whales are two examples that came up on this board not too long ago.

quote:

---

because "unfortunately" the record isn't complete. Sorry, no sell.

---

You can reconstruct descent from the fossil records, but you won't find what you are asking to find. That is the point. I suspect that nothing short of a representative of every generation from bacteria to humans will convince you that there is such a relationship.

quote:

---

2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year).

---

Everybody agrees? Who exactly is everybody?

quote:

---

It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.

---

Every year hundreds of rivers overflow their banks and dump many feet of sediment, locally, in the process. This is a natural current process. This is not a global flood by any stretch. And it is one of many processes going on today that can bury things rapidly. Volcanoes are another example.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]