|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Ahmad,
You say: A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links? PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was? Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by peter borger: Ahmad, You say: A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links? PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was? Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark: That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago,... PB: Probably they evolved into something different. Mark: ...are re-created at the Ju/K boundary,... PB: probably they evolved back. Mark: ...become extinct for a further 146 million years, PB: Probably they evolved into something different. Mark: ...then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago. PB: Probably..... etc Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark: It was, Peter, it takes more than a theist posing as an atheist to change that, & until you address the questions I asked eons ago, I'm not going there. PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up. Mark: This thread is about fossil evidence,... PB: There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution. The fossils you need ar not there, haven't been there and will never be there. Like a midieval alchemist you are searching the stone of wisdom. (You will not find'm, I've got'm ) mark: ...your molecular *snicker* evidence has been trounced more than adequately elsewhere. So, unless you have anything else to add? Talk about turning everything into a nail. PB: At least I have unequivocal evidence for design. Mark: The molecular evidence that supports evolution FALSIFIES GUToB. OK? How does that sound? PB: The sound is pretty convincing. Unfortunately, these data can be explained differently. As reiterated over and over. It is NOT unequivocal evidence. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mark: Nope, have the courtesy of addressing the answers to my questions to me. PB: Formulate your questions, and I will answer them (again). BWPeter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
You're already wasting your time: on this forum. But anyway, if you really wish to continue, I will look them up. Mail #98 thread "End of evolutionism (2)", if I recall properly? best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Edge,
E: I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it. PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing. The rest (minor transitions) can be explained by the GUToB. It descibes perfectly what we see. We don't need the utter hypothetical model of evolution from microbe to man since it describes things that have never been observed. If you had a fossil record that contained the major transition forms than you had a reason to set up such theory. Since you have not, the theory is completely gratuitous. And now even the NDT has fallen, so there is nothing left to believe the hype. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
Definitions again. My definition or yours? Anyway, what about something like 'intermediate or transtion forms between the phyla'. For evolutionism it would be nice to find them in the fossil record between cnidaria, mollusca, arthropoda, brachiopoda, echinodermata and vertebrata.I am aware that some 'mammal-like' reptiles are taken as stratomorphic intermediates between reptiles and mammals. But it is not what I mean. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear mark,
M: Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists. PB: If a theory doesn't predict right than the theory isn't right. Right? best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
Maybe it's time for shaving? Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
MP: Why? I know the predicted intermediates exist, the only way you can deny such a thing is to parody the ToE's definition of "transitional" or "intermediate". PB: So why don't you make up the definition yourself? Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
Please, specify taxa. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
MP1: A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa. MP2: Any taxa, from species to kingdom. PB: Okay, King Philip Came Over From Great Spain.& From Talk-origins: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A: Predictions of evolutionary theory:Evolutionary theory predicts that fossils should appear in a temporal progression, in a nested hierarchy of lineages, and that it should be possible to link modern animals to older, very different animals. PB: Is that all? This is also predicted by the GUToB. nI expect the appearance of essential organisms first to prepare the earth for the coming of man. From the EoT I would have expected this: 1) There are TFs between Kingdoms,2) There are TFs between Phyla, 3) There are TFs between Classes, 4) There are TFs between Orders, 5) There are TFs between Families, 6) There are TFs between Genera, 7) There are TFs between Species. At least these are some easy to check predictions. Let’s consider it a missed chance for the Talk-origin guys/evolutionism in general. Talk-origin (continued):In addition, the "punctuated equilibrium" model also predicts that new species should often appear "suddenly" (within 500,000 years or less) and then experience long periods of stasis. PB: THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE GUToB PREDICTS. It is however NOT evolutionism. Evolve = slowly developing, like a story plot develops. It is from Latin: evolvere. Talk-origin (cont):Where the record is exceptionally good, we should find a few local, rapid transitions between species. PB: HAY, THAT IS ALSO PREDICTED BY GUToB! (Hay, hands of from my GUToB ). If all information was already present in the archetype this model is easy to conceive by shuffling of preexisting DNA elements. However, these elements do not form spontaneously in the genome from scratch and can only reside in the genome upon permanent selective constraint since they are redundancies! And redundancies are unstable! Therefore the GUToB predicts that even the simplest organisms have a complete set of DNA repair enzymes). Talk-origin (cont): The "phyletic gradualism" model predicts that most species should change gradually throughout time, and that where the record is good, there should be many slow, smooth species-to-species transitions. PB: This is evolutionism as it has been proposed originally. The Gould and Eldridge hypothesis has no molecular genetic foundation. As we know now, redundancies required for such model CANNOT reside stably in the genome without selective constraint. They will get lost/inactivated over time. Talk-origin (cont): These two models are not mutually exclusive -- in fact they are often viewed as two extremes of a continuum -- and both agree that at least some species-to-species transitions should be found. PB: There are NO two models. There is only one and that is the gradual model as originally proposed by Darwin. As an evolutionary theory the G&E model can be completely refuted, since it has no scientific foundation. It could be replaced by GUToB, though. Well, dear Mark, these are my comments on so called evo-predictions concerning the fossil record. I am sure you don't agree. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
If you can demonstrate 1) TFs between Kingdoms,2) TFs between Phyla, 3) TFs between Classes, 4) TFs between Orders, 5) TFs between Families, 6) TFs between Genera, 7) TFs between Species it would be very good for evolutionism. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
Never seen one that could qualify as a TF best wishes,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7666 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Edge:
A transitionform is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms. Best wishes,Peter
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024