Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
83 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,188 Year: 4,300/6,534 Month: 514/900 Week: 38/182 Day: 10/16 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 13 of 830 (486879)
10-25-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by wardog25
10-25-2008 9:25 AM


The questions of "what happened" and "how it happpened" are related but separate. Macroevolution falls mostly in the realm of "what happened". Microevolution is foundational to the question of "how it happened" since it shows mechanisms that are plausibly capable of explaining what has happened.

If want to deal with the "what happened" question, the issue is one of providing an explanation for the major patterns observed in our study of life - including the past life.

One example is that - even using the Linnaean taxonomy of Darwin's time life may be arranged into a nested tree to a very good explanation. This is not typically true of objects designed by humans. However such a result would be the expected outcome of a process based on "descent with modification" - evolution.

Niles Eldredge did a study on the development of trombones and found it to be quite different from what we see in living beings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 9:25 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 112 of 830 (856229)
06-28-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
06-28-2019 3:50 PM


quote:

First, you take the fossil record as evidence of evolution, and while there may be some creationists who accept that idea too I doubt there are many and I certainly don't.

Which does not speak well of creationists.

quote:

In my view the strata in which the fossils are found, that are identified by names llke "Triassic" and assigned millions of years of duration, are much better evidence for the worldwide Flood than for the ToE

Since the Flood could not possibly produce the fossil record your view is not even remotely sensible. The order of the fossil record refutes it (as does a lot of other evidence).

quote:

I think it very odd, as a matter of fact, that intelligent people think time would be marked by such geological phenomena, a l a y e r of one particular sediment representing a particular time period of millions of years in which particular creatures llved, their burial in the sedimentary l a y e r being the evidence.

In reality it would be quite strange for it to be a single sediment - most formations are mixed. But otherwise it is a. entirely sensible view, unlike yours.

quote:

I find that seriously contemplating that idea leads me to serious cynicism about the "science" that accepts such an idea.

Imagine people actually caring about evidence and reason rather than mindlessly worshipping you! Even when they must know that you will lie about them for daring to defy you!

quote:

As for the evolution interpretation of the fossil record I have the objection that getting new species takes only a few years, a hundred at most and that's a stretch, so the millions of years attached to the geological column are ridiculous.

Again your idea is nuts. First, you severely underrate the time needed. Second, you completely ignore the time between speciation events which is the vast bulk of it anyway. Third, the time is not calculated based on evolution are timescales anyway.

quote:

I also have the objection that it's physically impossible for creatures to get buried and fossilized in such an orderly way in separate and discreet sediments over periods of millions of years

You are not making sense here. The only order is the historical succession of species which will naturally be represented in the fossil record.

quote:

I also have the objection that fossilization requires specific conditions, conditions beautifully met by a worldwide Flood but hard to explain on the theory of separate time periods.

Which is also nuts since a worldwide Flood would not be expected to produce sandstorms - which is how some fossils were originally buried. It isn’t even a sensible objection - even if the Flood would produce suitable conditions it hardly makes it the only explanation. And we already know that the Flood couldn’t produce the fossil record anyway.

quote:

Yes, once a person is as persuaded of the ToE as you are it is very hard to get across the wholly different creationist explanation of living things

Or once people properly understand the situation it is hard to fool them into believing crazy nonsense.

quote:

Interim summary: What you consider to be ironclad evidence for the ToE is actually open to other interpretations.

Perhaps you should take the time to come up with some viable alternative interpretations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 3:50 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 113 of 830 (856230)
06-28-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
06-28-2019 4:25 PM


Creationists are anti-science
quote:

But science, true science, the science that develops medicine and discovered electricity and nuclear power and sends rockets into space and all that, is completely compatible with the idea of God, at least the biblical God. When you say it's not you are thinking of the bogus science of the ToE. That's the ONLY "science" that is incompatible and it's a fraud.

Making ridiculous false accusations only proves that you are anti-science. If you don’t want people knowing it, don’t go around shoving it the proof in their faces.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 4:25 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 130 of 830 (856313)
06-29-2019 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
06-29-2019 2:13 PM


Re: problem?
quote:

Oh, and isn't there a bit of a problem with the usual understanding of when the continents split?

No there isn’t

quote:

But then the full geological column would not yet have developed, only up to that level

That’s part of the evidence.

quote:

Yet we have complete stacks showing continuous deposition.

We don’t actually have continuous deposition anywhere. But continental drift is certainly not going to stop deposition. All that happens is that as the continents drift apart you are going to tend to get different deposits, in the newly-separated regions, as would be expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 2:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 132 of 830 (856332)
06-29-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
06-29-2019 3:49 PM


Re: problem?
quote:

O blithering blather. When the continents split at the very least the existing geo column would have been disturbed

In your scenario it would have been quite drastically disturbed (especially as a lot of it would still be soft sediment). I don’t believe the slower rates we observe now would have caused huge disruption.

quote:

And you are not getting anything new anyway, just the continuation of the stack, and that isn't going to happen after that kind of upheaval

You are making no sense. Deposition is continuing now with the same sort of “disruption” - the tectonic plates are still moving.

quote:

It's really remarkable that the strata of the British Isles just continue in a llne without any interruption at the Permian level although there they are right at the boundary of a continental split.

Have you actually checked what happened to the British Isles at that time (if you haven’t you shouldn’t even be arguing about it). But they did start drifting off - and if it doesn’t show immediately in the geology - that would be more evidence for slow rates of drift.

What you are missing is that the reconstructions of continental drift comes from the geological evidence. If you are arguing that the entire local geological column was in place before the continents started moving you are creating problems for your view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:49 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 140 of 830 (856360)
06-30-2019 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
06-29-2019 9:23 PM


quote:

"Real world history" back that far is a lot of subjective guesswork.

Not to the extent that it is even possible you could be right. There is an extensive archaeological record of Egypt going back further still.

quote:

Egypt didn't exist until after the Flood.

No Flood in the history, no Flood in the archaeology. You’re just mistaking myth for fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 9:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 6:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 142 of 830 (856365)
06-30-2019 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
06-30-2019 6:29 AM


Re: Timing the Flood
quote:

You know I can point to geological evidence that supports the Flood.

I know that you have nothing of significance and that the weight of geological evidence thoroughly refutes your claim.

quote:

We can debate about the timing of course but the Bible is pretty clear about timing it at roughly 4300 years ago and although you dispute the Bible, I of course don't.

That timing makes the geological evidence irrelevant. Not that it matters. There is still no Flood to be seen.

quote:

Archaeology isn't divinely inspired, believe it or not.

Neither is the Bible. But if you believe that it is, why are you so keen to interpret it as making false claims ? It’s not very different from claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 6:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 7:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 144 of 830 (856369)
06-30-2019 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
06-30-2019 7:26 AM


Re: Timing the Flood
quote:

Na, "the weight of geological evidence" isn't a problem, that's just the usual hidebound establishment idea of geological evidence. But the REAL evidence is good support for the Flood.

Things you made up are not “REAL evidence”, Faith. It’s way past time you learned that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 7:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 9:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 146 of 830 (856375)
06-30-2019 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
06-30-2019 9:54 AM


Re: Timing the Flood
quote:

I'm talking about real evidence that I have described many times, and I think you know that,

I think that you know that it isn’t true. Certainly you don’t have any real evidence of any significance. While we have plenty of evidence against your claims.

quote:

...you who play games, twist things, try to trip me up and so on.

Just more of your usual false accusations.

quote:

No, it's real evidence

Like your claim that there’s no erosion between strata ? That was made up, for one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 9:54 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 183 of 830 (856907)
07-04-2019 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:37 AM


quote:

I'm very aware of the principle of falsifiability, and very aware that you are wrong about the falsifiability of dinosaurs to birds etc.

Really ? Bird-like footprints were discovered in Triassic strata. If remains of the creature that made them were discovered it could prove that birds were not descended from dinosaurs.

quote:

Although it's probably not completely impossible, science about the distant past is just not falsifiable.

Plenty of it is. If radiometric dates turned out to completely disagree with the relative dates from earlier geology, radiometric dating methods would have been falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:37 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 192 of 830 (856944)
07-04-2019 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
07-04-2019 6:48 AM


quote:

Yes that's right but overall it's too easy to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit when it's in the past where it can be reinterpreted instead of definitively identified as false.

Only for people with ridiculously low standards. For example Message 682


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:48 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 209 of 830 (869483)
12-31-2019 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
12-30-2019 9:55 PM


Re: Message 107 continued: basic statements about evolution
quote:
The "shrew-like" horse is only the kind of horse that happened to get buried in the rocks known as "Triassic." But all they are is a variation built into the horse genome, that lived before the Flood and apparently died out completely in the Flood, leaving other types of horses that survived it

This is a typical Faith misunderstanding. There are no horses in the Triassic, only very early mammals.

And indeed this brings us to some very good evidence for evolution.

Those early mammals like Morganucodon display clear transitional features, most notably in the bones related to the jaw and ear.

Others, however, define "mammals", as a group, by the possession of a special, secondarily evolved jaw joint between the dentary and the squamosal bones, which has replaced the primitive one between the articular and quadrate bones in all modern mammalian groups. Under this definition, Morganucodon would be a mammal. Nevertheless, its lower jaw retains some of the bones found in its non-mammalian ancestors in a very reduced form rather than being composed solely of the dentary. Furthermore, the primitive reptile-like jaw joint between the articular and quadrate bones, which in modern mammals has moved into the middle ear and become part of the ear ossicles as malleus and incus, is still to be found in Morganucodon.

The evolution of the mammalian jaw was one of the great puzzles in evolution. However, the intermediate forms were found and the problem was solved by the fossil evidence. Evidence that would be completely unexpected if mammals were not related to reptiles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 9:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 213 of 830 (869506)
12-31-2019 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
12-31-2019 1:50 PM


Re: Message 107 continued: basic statements about evolution
quote:
A "transitional" is just one of the variations possible within a genome

I guess that reptiles and mammals are all the same “species” to you, then. If not then you have to explain why intermediate forms for a transition that was hard to explain just happen to exist at the right point in the fossil record. Because dismissing evidence like that with off-hand comments that fail to address the issues is not honest argument.

quote:
You still have the same problem between these "transitionals" you have without them in the picture, if you are trying to get from one form to another by trial and error. It's not possible

The real problem - that we could not understand how this transition could occur is solved by the discovery of intermediate forms. Which - especially when we add in the fact that they are discovered in the right place in the fossil record is strong evidence that the transition did occur. That you declare it impossible is not a problem for us. Science does not care about crank opinions, and nor do I.

quote:
It's either a variation built into a creature's genome or the only way for it to evolve from one genome to another is by trial and error through mutations, and that' is not possible.

Evolution from one genome to another is not only possible, it is a virtual certainty in any population that persists for long enough. Even populations which do not change much in morphology will experience genetic drift.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:50 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2019 2:34 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 226 of 830 (869596)
01-02-2020 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by dwise1
01-02-2020 2:10 PM


Re: Response to Message 107
More importantly Faith removes any element of objectivity in the definition. She might as well say that humans and monkeys are the same species.

Of course she’s just trying to cover up another of her ignorant mistakes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2020 2:10 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 2:26 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2020 2:45 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 230 of 830 (869602)
01-02-2020 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
01-02-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Response to Message 107
quote:
Weird idea. The differences between humans and chimps is at LEAST as great as the differences between sheep and goats or deer etc.

i won’t bother arguing with that point since the important fact is that there are bigger differences between trilobites - so it isn’t a weird idea at all. Indeed since the trilobites and the primates are both classified as Orders it is an entirely reasonable idea.

The weird idea is redefining “species” so it includes an entire Order.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 2:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 2:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022