Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:10 PM
24 online now:
Diomedes, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 246 (137476)
08-27-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 4:16 PM


Your classifications are not the way it is in the real world.

No classification is the way it is in the real world, because all classifications are artifical groupings.

Even species, when you think about it. To an organism, there's the individuals around them that they could mate with, and then there's everything else they can't. That's all the classification that exists in the natural world; trying to determine if the organism could mate with another individual over the next hill is artifical, human classification again.

"Reptile" and "mammal" are just words we use for artifical, arbitrary groupings of animals; we might base those groupings on an arbitrary selection of physical characteristics but there's nothing inherently "mammal" or "reptile" or whatever about any organism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 4:16 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 2:22 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 212 of 246 (137672)
08-28-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Loudmouth
08-27-2004 4:28 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
No that would be stupid of me. You have shown no lineages of one kind to another. You have shown only common speciation.
I understand you see different jaws and see reptile into mammal. I see just one kind therapsid. It's still just that. Also yes I have expanded the differences allowable in a kind. This is new to you and many creationists but I have come to this conclusion and work from this point. Indeed there must be an expansion. The fossil record shows it.
However still you all don't show what should be there. great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries. Not just jaws and feet.
You don't show a complete lineage only a partial one and I say not that.
Rob Try creatures alive today I suggest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 4:28 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 3:28 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 213 of 246 (137675)
08-28-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by RAZD
08-27-2004 5:47 PM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed?
What I say is a common answer to supporters of evolution in this field.

We mean that all the changes between a camel and its mouse like ancester should be evident in the fossil record. All the way to today and many examlpes of the different kinds along the way.
Instead zilch
Rob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2004 5:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 5:28 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 215 by sidelined, posted 08-29-2004 6:59 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 214 of 246 (137699)
08-28-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 4:58 PM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed!
thanks for confirming that

now, again:

There should be endless abundance and between clear kinds of creatures. Not jaws and feet. Thats pathaticlly poor.

Why? because you don't understand the process? I have asked you several times to expand this argument with detail and example, but so far all it is has been groundless assertion.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IT.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 4:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 246 (137796)
08-29-2004 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 4:58 PM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed?
Robert Byers

We mean that all the changes between a camel and its mouse like ancester should be evident in the fossil record. All the way to today and many examlpes of the different kinds along the way.
Instead zilch

Wrong on both counts my good man.All the changes should only be evident in a perfect fossil record.No such thing exists and so we are left with an incomplete record and must examine it carefully and use our understanding of the bone structure of animals to surmise the most likely scenario for the fossil record that we do have.
So zilch is also wrong because even though the fossil record isn't perfect we can apply our intellect to following the evidence and see what the evidence gives us amd combined with our thinking capabilities in concert with others who are observing the same evidence come to some sort of concensus as to the means by which this came about.

It is best not to deal with absolute stances in a field where the preponderance of evidence from a vast number of scientific disciplines comes to the same consensus.Now if you have a beef about something specific rather than a general dislike of an overall field of study please make your case on that specific issue unless you have a viable refutation of the work of all these people in these different disciplines have come to agree upon.

That is a nasty word evidence isn't it since it really does not care whether your beliefs conflict with it or not,as that is only your problem?Ideas about the facts cannot contradict the evidence of those facts.Pity the world has no obligation to accomodate our wishes to the contrary.

Later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 4:58 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 4:07 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 246 (138515)
08-31-2004 2:32 PM


Rob Byers wrote:
quote:
We mean that all the changes between a camel and its mouse like ancester should be evident in the fossil record. All the way to today and many examlpes of the different kinds along the way.
Instead zilch
Rob


There are fossil records of marine animals showing transistional changes in the geological sequence. Land animal fossils are extremely rare, simple reason is that the animals lived on land. Animal remains need to be buried quickly in sediment (Like washed away in a flooding river).
The horse is a well documented case showing changes from its earliest ancestor to the presnt day.


Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 4:12 PM Mike_King has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 246 (138540)
08-31-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
quote:
You have shown no lineages of one kind to another. You have shown only common speciation.

What is common speciation?

quote:
I understand you see different jaws and see reptile into mammal. I see just one kind therapsid.

I don't see a Bible, I see a bunch of letters strewn on a page. Come on Rob. Look at reptiles now and what do you see? One middle ear bone, three lower jaw bones. Look at mammals today, what do you see? Three middle ear bones, one lower jaw bone. Look at mammal fetal development today and what do you see? Two bones in the lower jaw move up into the middle ear joining the single middle ear bone. What do we see in the fossil record? Over time, two lower jawbones moving up into the middle ear along with the development of numerous other mammalian charateristics. If I were a defense attorney I would want you in the jury box.

quote:
However still you all don't show what should be there. great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries. Not just jaws and feet.

Why should the fossil record contain every species that ever lived? For example, passenger pigeons numbered in the billions before man caused their extinction. We have yet to find a passenger pigeon fossil. Also, creationists claim that the preservation of complete fossils are indicative of rapid burial by a world wide flood? So the question to you is where are these millions of complete fossils buried at? Why do we keep finding one or two fossils for each species, and incomplete ones at that? Why don't we find millions upon millions of fossils due to this supposed rapid burial?

quote:
You don't show a complete lineage only a partial one and I say not that.

The other problem is that we never know if a lineage is complete. Also, intermediate species may not differ in the make up of their skeleton. That is, we can't tell if two fossil species interbred or not. What we can see in the fossil record (such as the reptile to mammal transition) is general trends of morphology that happen over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 4:49 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 10:16 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 4:22 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 218 of 246 (138650)
08-31-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Loudmouth
08-31-2004 3:28 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
Robert has basically said that "speciation within a kind" ("micro"evolution) now applies at the CLASS level:

http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=501&m=214#214

Why should the fossil record contain every species that ever lived?

yeah, I don't get where he comes up with "great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries" either, other than badly misunderstanding reality.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 3:28 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 219 of 246 (139199)
09-02-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
08-27-2004 5:55 PM


I agree with everything you said and so should everybody. Indeed mating together is the whole point of speciation. If animals can mate together then they are the same kind. as for example they have produced offsping from a whale and a dolphine or something like that. Perhaps however speciation puts up some walls to mating,beyond behavior as since a whale was from the land originally I question if it could mate with its land ancester today or if that ancester had survived on the land. But perhaps it could.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2004 5:55 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 6:00 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 220 of 246 (139241)
09-02-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by sidelined
08-29-2004 6:59 AM


Re: KIND = CLASS .... confirmed?
I understand the problem of a incompletev record but it in fact very good. Great conclusions are drawn from it and so should a great conclusion that the abscence of intermediary's is leathal. Indeed evolutionists all by themselves deal with this. To say Just a little more time please is a cop-out..

New words here about what science is. SURMISE and FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE and PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE FROM A VAST NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC DISOPLINES.

All this is fine to creationists. Weighing, following, surmising evidence is legitamate in fields of study. HOWEVER IS IT SCIENCE. That is does it use the scientific method.
This is our discussion and I say the method is a package deal and only the whole package mahes it the method. I say evolution has used evidences but that is still not the special case of scientific evidence. Very different.
ROB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by sidelined, posted 08-29-2004 6:59 AM sidelined has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 221 of 246 (139245)
09-02-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Mike_King
08-31-2004 2:32 PM


Back to the horsey's to show lineage. WOW.

Marine animal fossil could in a few cases show from point a to point b. I believe the whale was first a land critter. However the fossils would not be intermediate. That is just an interpretation. They in fact fit thier world fine and there is no agenda in speciation. And
Rob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Mike_King, posted 08-31-2004 2:32 PM Mike_King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:32 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 222 of 246 (139250)
09-02-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Loudmouth
08-31-2004 3:28 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
Bone structure in mammals and repltiles is not evidence or lack of ancestry. That is just a human interpretation waiting to be overthrown. For example one kind of tree sloth has another vertebra then the other kind in south America. However they have the same ancestry. The bone stuctures are adaptations only. The perceived progression of structure is a misinterpretation. It is not forceful evidence (certainly not scientific).
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 3:28 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 246 (139254)
09-02-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Robert Byers
09-02-2004 4:12 PM


quote:
Marine animal fossil could in a few cases show from point a to point b.

And they do:

Along with the time scale:

Again, cladistics and stratigraphy match up very well (as usual). This is a complete, smooth transitional series that are ordered in the fossil record. Go here for the full story.

quote:
I believe the whale was first a land critter. However the fossils would not be intermediate. That is just an interpretation.

So what should an intermediate between a land mammal and an aquatic mammal look like? If our interpretation is incorrect, then what should the actuall intermediate look like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 4:12 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Robert Byers, posted 09-03-2004 3:02 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 224 of 246 (139267)
09-02-2004 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Robert Byers
09-02-2004 2:22 PM


"Micro"evolution according to Bob
Let's cut to the chase and put the cards on the table here.

Robert writes:

Indeed mating together is the whole point of speciation. If animals can mate together then they are the same kind.

Let's suppose that we can show a living example of every single critter ever alive on the planet.

Then that we can show that each "species" as classified by science can mate\interbreed with each adjoining "species" thus showing each and every differentiation between species to be "just speciation events" or "micro"evolution in the normal creationist parlance.

This would mean that every single thing living is all of the original "kind" and "micro"evolution is all there is.

When we compare this to what evolution says, it is remarkable similar. The differentiation into species and other classifications is really arbitrary, but useful for discussing the differences.

When we compare this to what creationists normally say, it is fraught with problems, yet this is where Robert is going. The only myopia is thinking that because all animals are dividable into different groups in the present means they can be so divided in the past. The therapsids showed this to be false.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 2:22 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 225 of 246 (139620)
09-03-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Loudmouth
09-02-2004 4:32 PM


Reaf your plankton thing but its just speciation and interpretation still to me.

About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood. There would be no intermediates in actuality. However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.
Rob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:32 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Loudmouth, posted 09-03-2004 3:43 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019