Where is the evidence for evolution?

Quetzal says:'But she [Margulis] falls flat as always by pushing her hypothesis beyond what can be supported.'PB: But that supposed to be allowed in evolutionism. Darwin did it, Dawkins does it, so why not Margulis? Evolutionism = conclusion jumping, so I don't see your point.Best wishes
Peter

Peter,You going to support your palaeontology claims, or what?Mark

One would hope it is not widely believed that the practice of bad science justifies the further practice of bad science. One would also hope that assertions of bad science would be backed up by supporting evidence and argument. And one would further hope that members debate in good faith and not throw red herrings into the ring.Quetzal supported his points with information and argument, and any rebuttals must do likewise. Please see the Forum Guidelines, particularly rules 2 and 4:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

Addressing Quetzal's rebuttal should be done in this thread. If you're interested in making a case against the science of Darwin and/or Dawkins then please open new threads. Thanks!------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Mark,In his famous book 'The Origin of Birds', Gerhard Heilmann concluded that 'although birds have several characteristics in common with dinosaurs birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. His reasons was fairly simple: birds have furculae and dinosaurs don't, and it would not have been possible for these structures to reevolve once they have been lost.' [Unless one assumes a shared MPG, but that would be GUToB]. Therefore, Heilmann says birds have not evolved from dinosaurs.More recently the bird-dinosaur link has been picked up again -- in particular by Jacque Gauthier -- and in fact evo's now believe that the birds are in fact a group of dinosaurs. Among the most spectacular findings of the past few years are perhaps the chinese dinosaurs of the Liaoning region; the dragon birds. They include the Proarchaeopteryx robusta, the Caudipteryx zoui, Sinornithosaurus mellini.An alleged common feature and support of a dino-bird link of these organisms is that they have feathers. Recently, I had a very careful close up look at the original chinese fossils, and for at least 2 (of 5 exposed chinese dragon birds) it is doubtful that they had feathers at all. The other fossils do indeed have feathers but a careful look at the fossils demonstrates that these organisms do not have wings at all. (one of them is pictured with its very long arms swinging from tree to tree like a Tarzan-like-bird-man; talking about imagination)So, if one is to claim that these are the transition forms leading to birds than one has to exclude the possibility of loss of wings, which is much more likely from a scientific point of view. Have a look at the Galapagos Cormorant. If this bird was only known from the fossil record one could take such fossils for transition forms towards complete development of wings (feathers and design are already bird) or did it loose its wings. For the Cormorant it is pretty obvious. Maybe the dragon bird fossils were also fish eating organisms and used their extremities for propelling under water instead of swinging in trees. Who knows?All there is is speculation and biased interpretation. From an evolutionary stance one could take them as transition forms (as you do), however I am not that gullible. I say it is just another MPG.Recently, it was demonstrated that dino and bird embryology is distinctly different, and makes the link even more unlikely (will look up the reference for you).Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

In his famous book 'The Origin of Birds', Gerhard Heilmann concluded that 'although birds have several characteristics in common with dinosaurs birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. His reasons was fairly simple: birds have furculae and dinosaurs don't, and it would not have been possible for these structures to reevolve once they have been lost.' [Unless one assumes a shared MPG, but that would be GUToB]. Therefore, Heilmann says birds have not evolved from dinosaurs.

---

True, there are modern theories suggesting that birds and other dinosaurs have a common ancestor. Is this the hypothesis that you now prefer?

quote:

---

More recently the bird-dinosaur link has been picked up again -- in particular by Jacque Gauthier -- and in fact evo's now believe that the birds are in fact a group of dinosaurs.

---

Yes, more support for the common ancestor for both birds and dinosaurs. I'm beginning to think you like this idea...

quote:

---

Among the most spectacular findings of the past few years are perhaps the chinese dinosaurs of the Liaoning region; the dragon birds. They include the Proarchaeopteryx robusta, the Caudipteryx zoui, Sinornithosaurus mellini.

​

An alleged common feature and support of a dino-bird link of these organisms is that they have feathers. Recently, I had a very careful close up look at the original chinese fossils, and for at least 2 (of 5 exposed chinese dragon birds) it is doubtful that they had feathers at all.

---

Hmm, is this based on your observations, or that of others?

quote:

---

The other fossils do indeed have feathers but a careful look at the fossils demonstrates that these organisms do not have wings at all. (one of them is pictured with its very long arms swinging from tree to tree like a Tarzan-like-bird-man; talking about imagination)

​

So, if one is to claim that these are the transition forms leading to birds than one has to exclude the possibility of loss of wings, which is much more likely from a scientific point of view.

---

Or loss of wings by a particular family of birds... And the problem with this is what?

quote:

---

Have a look at the Galapagos Cormorant. If this bird was only known from the fossil record one could take such fossils for transition forms towards complete development of wings (feathers and design are already bird) or did it loose its wings.

---

But you leave out a critical piece of evidence: the timing of gain or loss of wing structures. This WOULD be a clue.

quote:

---

All there is is speculation and biased interpretation. From an evolutionary stance one could take them as transition forms (as you do), however I am not that gullible. I say it is just another MPG.

---

And, of course, your MPG hypothesis is not based on speculation or biased interpretation? Or are you saying that we must wait for all of the evidence to come in before creating a working hypothesis, as some absolutists around here seem to indicate?

quote:

---

Recently, it was demonstrated that dino and bird embryology is distinctly different, and makes the link even more unlikely (will look up the reference for you).

---

That would be good. But wait, isn't it just based on speculation and interpretation? Perhaps you could also explain why this is a problem.

Hi Admin,Peter Borger writes:
But that supposed to be allowed in evolutionism. Darwin did it, Dawkins does it, so why not Margulis? Evolutionism = conclusion jumping, so I don't see your point.Admin: One would hope it is not widely believed that the practice of bad science justifies the further practice of bad science. One would also hope that assertions of bad science would be backed up by supporting evidence and argument. And one would further hope that members debate in good faith and not throw red herrings into the ring.PB: My point was and is: from what we now know about genomes Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation. I've reiterated that several times. No response till now.Admin: Quetzal supported his points with information and argument, and any rebuttals must do likewise.PB: I am among the people who always respond with scientific arguments why, where and how evolutinism is wrong. So, if I make a statement on Darwin's unwarranted extrapolation it also should be addressed with information and arguments (see forum rules). Till now no one did.Admin: Please see the Forum Guidelines, particularly rules 2 and 4:2) Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.PB) I am still waiting for any arguments that demonstrate my statement on the invalidity of Darwin's extrapolation. I will repeat it as long as necessary.4) Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.PB: I always back up my claims. Even here I wondered why margulis was not allowed to conclusion jump, while all the other evo's are doing the same.Admin: Addressing Quetzal's rebuttal should be done in this thread.PB: I was not adressing Q's rebuttal, I wondered why he used two measures.Admin: If you're interested in making a case against the science of Darwin and/or Dawkins then please open new threads. Thanks!PB: Yeah, why not make a topic of it. Thanks!Best wishes,
Peter

Which "two measures" were those, Peter? I use the same yardstick with Margulis as I do with other "new" theories that are presented. The difference being, of course, that quite a large part of Margulis' theories have solid foundations, whereas other theories have none, or are even contraindicated by the available evidence - their proponents whining notwithstanding.What do YOU think of SET as the basis for the diversity of life? If her theory attacks the importance of NS, it utterly obliterates the GUToB, since there are no pre-existing genomes, and everything that has occurred (assuming she's right), has done so via symbiosis and NOT mutation (whether random or NRM).(edited to add: And you and I have not yet crossed swords on Dawkins. You might find it enlightening that I don't agree with everything he wrote - especially the "selfish gene" concept. Try it sometime on a new thread.)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-17-2003]

You have had replies on your claim about Darwin's "extrapolation", and you know it. Please do not tell blatant lies on this forum.I on the other hand am still waiting for any evidnece that this "extrapolation" is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

Dr Borger,Would one pair of fore wings and one pair of hind wings constitute an original MPG?Microraptor gui the four-winged bird unearthed earlier this year showed such characteristics. IMO I don't buy the dino>bird scenario, I prefer the stem reptile>bird transition. But you would claim that birds are excluded from reptile MPGs.Which means (If I may extrapolate it as such), all birds, including Archaeopteryx and those dragon birds, are variation and degeneration from an original bird MPG.Which means, one MPG = one class (in Aves,)Which made me check your earlier claims, namely one MPG = one species (human vs chimp), one MPG = one phylum (arthropods), one MPG = one order (cetaceans vs Ambulocetus), one MPG = one family (Old World monkeys vs New World monkeys)...Personally I'd pick the suggestion of one MPG = one animal phylum (don't know how it would apply to other groups of life) since I am skeptical about the existence of interphylum transitional forms. The gap between phyla is great and IMO each deserved its own MPG (or archetype). But that would cancel all other designations, and allow evolution with natural selection to account for the development within a phylum, such as evolution of termites from cockroaches, tetrapods from fish, whales from primitive ungulates, birds from reptiles, and, what else, ancient apes to man.What do you think? I think it's not a hasty extrapolation of microbe to man. It's just an extrapolation from archetypal ancetral vertebrate to man

Hi Peter Borger,I would like you to give greater consideration to my requests. In order for you to have the opportunity to do this I am giving you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I did not mention the mythology of GUToB, MRG, etc.I fail to see why I was called out on it.

You weren't. Peter brought it up in a message he addressed to you. Sorry not to be more clear, but all I wanted was for Peter not to raise these topics in this thread, and I included you so you knew not to respond to Peter.It probably isn't clear to people how board administration views these topics. While not trying to assign blame, we have become concerned that discussion of GUToB is becoming mixed into many threads not originally intended to address it, and that this was happening while there wasn't a clear understanding of what GUToB is. In order to keep threads focused and in order to have discussion be informed we have tried to limit GUToB to only a single thread until such time as it becomes clearly defined.The inclination of this administrator is always to try to assist members in making their points clear, but my experience indicates that, perhaps because of my own shortcomings, this almost always deteriorates into arguments that I'm wrong and/or don't understand, and pretty soon I'm repeating the same debate other members were having, but as administrator, which isn't good.And so I leave Peter Borger to find his own way out. If he can make GUToB clear to everyone else then its discussion will no longer be limited to a single thread. By the way, that thread is: There's another thread where Peter Borger and I are attempting to develop a clear definition of GUToB: ------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

... that quite a large part of Margulis' theories have solid foundations,...

---

I think that the Margulis theories deserve their own topic (but I'm not the one to start it). In this existing topic, it is destined to be deeply buried, never to be seen again.And now for some general moose observations on long topics:I am inclined to think that a topic should be closed after a certain number of messages (100???) unless there seems good reason not to. A 300+ message topic, such as this one, seems destined to wander aimlessly, touching on both good and bad discussion.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Probably. The only problem with opening a new thread for discussion of something like SET or the role of parasites in evolution is the OP for the topic requires a pretty hefty essay. I may take a stab at it - right after I finish the essay on metapopulation dynamics and extinction I promised funky - which is progressing at the snail's pace of about a paragraph a day... Otherwise, it's just easier to reply in an existing thread, even if it's sort of (or mostly) off topic. (Yeah, yeah. I know I'm a lazy sod, but there it is.) It's one thing to post a "Evolutionists can't explain X" sort of one line challenge OP. It's another to develop an explanation for a complex line of argument. I don't know what the solution is...

Not that lasy. I don't know if I would even bother trying to write an essay, but maybe it also has to do with no having read enough to be able to write one. Become a creationist. It is far simpler to assert than to argue. That's my off topic post for the day.A suggestion. Perhaps off topic post, like this one, should be marked as such. That way people who don't want to read them, can just skip them? Then again it might encourage these sort of posts.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy