|
Author
|
Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
SkepticTA, This has become my pretty much standard response to the claim that the fossil record doesn't support evolution. "Given that the cladograms under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The cladogram is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex cladograms) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.
Assessing Congruence Between Cladistic and Stratigraphic Data Stratigraphic Consistency Index The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)." Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?" Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these cladograms infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), macroevolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 04:20 AM This message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 09:37 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: This does not prove Evolution
Skeptic,
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand? With reference to post 4. Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help. The average cladogram in Bentons study has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate. C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n! n= total no. of nodes K= correct nodes r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodes C(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5! 10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120 10/120 1/12 There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way. 5.68*10^323:1 568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of 300 cladograms enjoying a 60% corroboration with stratigraphy. That's as close to "proof" as you get in science. Clearly the standard required by you to have every intermediate in a lineage is not necessary. That evolutionary expectations are observed in the fossil record far & above what would be expected by chance "proves" evolution. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Still problems with evolution.
SkepticToAll,
However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence. I refer you to post 4, & post 14. It's only possible to come up with your comment, above, if you haven't bothered to look at the evidence. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert,
OK good points. This comes up all the time. The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it. The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis. This is false, when evolution was first hypothesised there wasn't a single example of a transitional, they are all predictions borne out.
The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it). PE was invoked to explain stasis, & the only "error" it scuppered was a 100% gradualism-all-the-time view of change. The fossils most definately are where evolutionary expectations say they should be, see post 4 & post 14 for details of the congruence of cladistics & stratigraphy.
All there is data in the field and then human interpretation. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history. Yes it was. Natural selection is FACT. Darwin didn't have a single transitional to support him at the time, they all came later. He lacked detailed knowledge of population genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, etc, all of which spectacularly bear out Darwins theory. Ergo, the hypothesis getting data to fit it IS borne out by history. It is difficult for you to be more wrong, this is kids stuff, Robert. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2004 04:14 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Weak case so far...
Skeptic,
So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution.... I think you'll find that people are providing examples rather than an exhaustive list. For the THIRD TIME (!), see post 4 & 14. It links to over 300 lineages. The original study was for 300, the total number of cladograms tested is now over a thousand. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2004 04:51 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert,
Thanks for the responce but you made my points. I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Thats the discussion here. Yes there are. A transitional according to evolutionary theory (as opposed to creationist mirepresentations) is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. These never existed in Darwins time. They do now. In post 68 you said the following:
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it. The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history. All of those statements are demonstrably wrong. I'll state it again to make it crystal clear. The evolutionary expectations that there should be transitional & intermediate fossil taxa had not been realised in Darwins day, subsequently, data has become available that meet said criteria. Ergo, data has been found that meets the theories predictions.
That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". The Yanks here are saying there was no error. PE just was added on they say. You misunderstand. In Darwins day there was only phyletic gradualism, now there is that AND PE, which after all is just gradualism at different rates. What was overturned was the full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else notion. What you are being told is correct, you are just showing the creationist ability to misunderstand everything. The "error" that is now corrected, is that we now know that phyletic gradualism isn't the only mode of evolution.
If it was science then PE advocates would of have to disprove test results verifying gradualism 100 years ago. But there were no tests. PE doesn't replace gradualism, in fact PE is gradualism, just at variable rates. There is evidence of phyletic gradualism as well as variable rates (PE). Therefore, the notion of full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else has been tested & falsified, contrary to your statement.
It was speculation and finally in these swmall circles someone came up with a new idea to deal with the embarrasment of fossil poverty on gradual change. Look, I've done you the honour of replying point by point, now you do the same & answer post 4, & post 14, please. It shows conclusively that the fossil record matches evolutionary expectations way, way beyond anything that would be expected by chance, & certainly not a global flood. It therefore stands to reason that since cladograms by & large match stratigraphy, that the inferred lineages are all transitional taxa. There's 300 cladograms originally under study with over a thousand now. This is your problem, Robert. There aren't just one or two intermediate taxa, they are legion. The fossil record is chock full of taxa that are intermediate to others. This isn't "mere" interpretation, or baseless assumption. The cladograms are independant of stratigraphy, independent of the geologic column, yet match evolutionary expectations rather than diluvial expectations. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2004 05:59 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Weak case so far...
Skeptic, You also have yet to respond to post 4, & post 14. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM | | SkepticToAll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Horse linage
just answer what is the animal before Hyracotherium?
A Condylarth. Mark
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 112 of 246 (128545)
07-29-2004 4:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by Coragyps
07-28-2004 11:31 PM
|
|
Re: Horse linage
Coragyps,
Hyracotherium, a foot-tall browser with five toes on its feet, isn't just a little unlike one of the Budweiser Clydesdales? It looks just a tad dissimilar to me... Nonsense, a pig can't be a transitional to a horse, they're too similar. I think we should be thankful Skeptic isn't involved with classification. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2004 11:31 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert Byers,
You say that PE just is gradualism at a different rate. Well yes but thats not the point. The point is that it replaced a previous idea. I understand that you are trying to say it only replaced a 100% all-the-time etc thing. Yet this is not true. The men who suggested PE are famous for this new idea. It was not just a extension. It was a correThey were also attacked in evolution circles at first. Sorry, mate, your 100% wrong, I've already explained why. You are just repeating yourself. It is both a new idea AND an extension of evolutionary understanding. In the same way that when electrons were discovered to exist in shells around a nucleus it in one way falsified the old "plum-pudding" view of atoms, & required a modification of the theory, & ultimately added to our understanding of what atoms were. Elements of the plum-pudding theory were correct but had been added to. Gradualism is correct, just not in the way Darwin thought. PE threw away the wrong bit & added to it. Unlike you I have read Gould, & what he specifically means PE to be. Read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, the chapter on PE. One of the authors of PE should know what they mean, shouldn't they? My last post stands.
My whole point about PE is not that it is opposed to gradualism. Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable. No, it insisted that gradualism occurs, but not at the same rate.
How can you say PE did not replace an important point in evolution thought? Easily, see my last post for an explanation.
And so the process of replacing is open to scrunity. And creationists can demonstrate that the previous idea was not backed up by Science but rather was speculation based on evidence of fossils found. No, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was at that time not contradicted by evidence. Perfectly scientific.
It was never a scientic theory and so it was easy to overthrow it with another "idea". (which also one day will be overthrown in like manner). No, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was at that time not contradicted by evidence. Perfectly scientific.
INDEED you yourself said the old idea was falsified and tested and then found wrong. Yes, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was eventually tested by new evidence. Perfectly scientific. THis is how science works.
....it is clear there was no previous falsification/testing. It was never a thing of science. But there WAS falsification/testing, you agree with me in your previous post. See below.
And the replacement hasn't falsified or tested anything either.
I can't see why we disagree on this. Yes it has, the notion that evolution proceeds via slow, constant phyletic gradualism & nothing else is falsified. That's why you said this:
Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable If it is now untenable because of new fossil evidence it has been tested/falsified. You say some bizarre things! The evidence is perfectly scientific, it consists of direct observations of fossils, their character values, & the context of their discovery. What's unscientific about that? I guarantee a strawman argument. Guarantee it. Science works by inductively producing a hypothesis based upon observation. It then deductively tests that hypothesis via observations (predictions, falsifications, etc.). In the light of that, could you please explain what is "scientific" evidence, as opposed to common or garden evidence? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 08-03-2004 06:00 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert, Did you understand post 121? Is Brad agreeing with me or you? Mark
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert,
Mark in North America this is not science. This is garden or common way of drawing conclusions. Nope, it's science. Even in North America.
Science is about a hypothesis that tests,falsifies etc and if it stands you have a theory. Correct, & if new data requires modification of a theory, then that's what happens. It happens all over the world, even in North America. 
A scientific theory is presented by acedemia to the public as something solidly based on a conclusion of a process of evidence testing (and being able to be tested).
Not just Inference on bits of data. You are equivocating. Even a well tested scientific theory has undergone stages where the theory was revised. Or perhaps you think atomic theory ISN'T inference on bits of data? No-one has ever seen an electron, neutron, or proton. They are all inferred from data. An interpretation of data. You are now going to whine that evolution is inference/interpretation about the past. So what? The key issue is that you claim that inference & interpretation is somehow wrong, yet accept the rest of science (that incidentally doesn't contradict your religion) that is based upon nothing but inference & interpretation. I believe the word "hypocrite" is not too strong a word at this juncture.
Yet another defination of science is introduced to defend an obvious matter. PE corrected a error in ToE. And this error was easily corrected because it was based not on science but historical inquiry. More baseless assertions. The scientific method can be just as easily applied to a past event as a present one. If you disagree, then you need to show why. Call it a historical science if you wish, it's still science. A hypothesis is inductively derived, it must have predictions (supporting evidence), & potential falsifications that may lead to the discarding or modification of the theory in order to be deductively tested. Evolution meets the standards of the scientific method, it is science. I'm afraid it is you who are clueless as to what science is.
PE overthrew no tests etc for there were none. There were, I point out the test of phyletic gradualism in post 99. You know, Robert, if assertions were the way to truth, you'd be my guru. But the fact is that a debate with you consists of you ignoring everything that is presented to you, & then, mantra-like, just cut & paste your original assertions despite them having been refuted. Let me try to put this another way that will get through your creationist bible blind skull. A test (in this case, a falsification) of pure phyletic gradualism would be to find evidence of rate change, rather than rate constancy. Seeing rate change TESTS (what about this presents such an impenetrable cognitive problem to you?) the 100% pure phyletic gradualism hypothesis. Of course, seeing rate constancy elsewhere means BOTH occur. Therefore pure phyletic gradualism is falsified, & replaced with a better understanding of evolution. Please, please, please tell me how the discovery of evolutionary rate change isn't a test of phyletic gradualism? Loudmouth in post 128 reiterates a point I have made/linked to, several times to you & Skeptic, & have been ignored every time. Allow me to link to post 4 once again. And again, please explain how cladistics matching stratigraphy isn't a test of evolution? You'd be all over it if it failed that test, I'm sure.
PE is a retreat even if not yet understood as such. It's like understanding that electrons AND protons exist, & hey, they are BOTH constituent parts of atoms. Funnily enough I don't see you complaining to physicists that the discovery of the neutron represents a "retreat" in atomic theory. Logic so perverse can only be creationist in origin. But then consistency/logic was never a strong point, was it? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robert Byers, The scientific method works as follows. A hypothesis is inductively derived from an observation. In order to be deductively tested, new data must be discovered which meets the predictions of the hypothesis. The hypothesis must be knowably wrong, hence there are potential falsifications which require the hypothesis to be rewritten or discarded. The more predictions (supporting evidence) a hypothesis has, the less tentative it becomes. Do you agree?
The discovery of evolutionary rate change (your words/premise) is not the result of the scientific method. Why not? In which case the alleged existence of subatomic particles isn't science, either.
Just reinterpretation of data already received. New data, not the same. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 08-07-2004 08:27 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: PE or not to PE
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
John Williams,
I would like someone to show me clear evidence of one species transitioning into another with clear stages of skeletal development etc. Vertebrates/Craniates represent a tiny, tiny portion of the total diversity of life on earth. Why on earth are you limiting yourself to them? Secondly. Given that the fossil record is poor (he says nonchalantly) at the 10k/year resolution. Why do you think you would see such a thing? Wouldn't it be best to ask for evidence that exists within geological bounds? Because if you do, it is irrefutable. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
™ Version 4.2