Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 88 (69822)
11-29-2003 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sonic
11-28-2003 8:20 PM


It seems there are a couple of issues to discuss:
1)Is there any evidence indicative of the validaty of the ToE. Specifically is there data to support the transitions between taxa higher than the species level (or is that genera that you want? )
2)Is there enough data?
I think we have agreed that there is some data. But I'm not sure about that. What have we agreed to?
As for the enough, I would have to ask how you arrive at the 1%.
I think you are saying that 1% of all fossils found should be a transitional (I'm not at all sure that we agree on what a transitional is though). That suggests that 1% of all individual organisms should be a transitional assuming that individuals get fossilized and found at random.
Do you think that, if you look around, 1% of all things are a 'transitional'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 8:20 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-29-2003 2:11 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 12 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 7:45 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 88 (69940)
11-29-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Sonic
11-29-2003 7:45 PM


Well, if you want 1% of all fossils to be transitionals (with no good reason for the 1% at all) then we need to know what a transitional (at any level) is.
What is a transitional in the case of a living animal? What transitional characteristics would you expect to fossilize.
By the way, I can't guess at where someone would come up with a number like 1% of all fossils. I would guess that we are closer to having 0.000001 % of all fossils and 0.0000000000001 % of the fossils of all things with bones that have lived). Taphonomists might be able to make a better estimate of those numbers but it is probably silly to assign one number on something that is bound to vary so widely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 7:45 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:04 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 88 (69953)
11-29-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:22 PM


If you disagree with the dating methods then you might want to go the thread -- "Creationist Arguements with Dating Methods".
I will set that up now and post some of what you site says. There is no good carrying on with this part of the discussion until you see how very wrong about dating your site is. I warned you to pick more carefully. They lie you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:22 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 88 (69961)
11-29-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:18 PM


Sonic, are you actually using the old "half formed" organs argument?
Let me, again,clarify what you are saying. You think that major evolutionary changes could not have happened because organs in "transition" would have to be unworkable. Is that your argument?
added by edit:
You use the expression "half formed heart". What do you think would constitute a half formed heart?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:18 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:36 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 88 (69962)
11-29-2003 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:23 PM


It should be there by now, press refresh on your browser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:23 PM Sonic has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 88 (69965)
11-29-2003 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:22 PM


I'll let you do some working away at the new dating thread and try not to overwhelm you (and I'm going out this evening maybe )
However, aside from the dating of the layers, they are in definite layers. There was a time with only certain kinds of life and a time later with others.
Aside from the dating of the order how do you explain the order?
(To save a moment of time, there is a thread on the flood and sorting of remains -- the fossils are NOT sorted by speed, ability to move, size, intellect or anything that creationists suggest so you will give yourself another problem if you try to suggest that)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:22 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:44 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 88 (69968)
11-29-2003 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:04 PM


Thank you, Sonic, for dropping the 1% thing. It shows you can learn something.
Now I'd like to understand what your issue is with similarities. Taking fossilized bones for now, what do you expect it to show? Until we had DNA evidence we have always taken relatedness as being indicated by similarities.
If you don't agree, why do the (some?) baraminologists (creationists) take all cats to be a cat-kind? Why not have aardvarks, whales and tigers in a "kind"? Isn't it because of the similarities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:04 PM Sonic has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 88 (69981)
11-29-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:44 PM


A few points
here is the thread I started:
http://EvC Forum: Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods. -->EvC Forum: Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
We are all biased. There is no good trying to pretend you are not or are going to somehow reach a state where you aren't if the topic is at all important to you. It is how you deal with it that is important.
You and I can't do all our own research. We can examine what has been done and try to determine how good it is. In science anything important must be reproduced (and probably many times) if it is going to be a foundation upon which to move forward. So that is something we might look for. We also want to see what critisms of the work has been done. Have those critisms been answered?
Since we can't do all the research we do have to refer to those who have done it. I am looking for support for the idea that the flood can produce the fossil record we see.
I think this thread is a good place for your evidence:
http://EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism -->EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism
You think the creationists have a good argument. Ok, let's see them. We're waiting. We've been shown a lot and have questioned them and pointed out flaws and not gotten answers back. There is a tendancy for the supporters to run off when they find out it is hard.
Re: 50/50 chance
The accepted explanation for geology and biology by scientists was once the creation and flood. They examined the evidence in more and more detail and could not keep those explanations. From this modern geology and biology developed. There isn't any 50/50 left, creationism (in a form) had it's chance, it was first but it didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Now back to the fossil record.
I think we still need to know what a transitional is. And what you mean by half formed. I may have missed that by answering this before reading eveything, sorry if I did.
Added by edit
OOps you did post something on it. i'll reply there
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:44 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 88 (69983)
11-29-2003 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:36 PM


Sonic writes:
For me to consider the reptilian in this picture to become mammilian like it shows in this picture we need to represent this change with intermediate jaws and ear bones, and skulls, an brains which would ffit into the skulls, just more intermediates, this would be gradulism. I understand that we dont have all fossils and we may never have them all because of how they form and because of land problems, but that is the problem exactly, without the more fossils we have no evolution according to the fossil record, we need those changes in order to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution.
I don't understand the basic point of this. You have said you understand that having all fossils (however that is defined) is not something we will ever have. Are you now saying because we don't have (and may never have) every single, most tiny step between reptile and mammal you don't (and won't ever) accept that this transition took place?
You say we have "...no evolution according to the fossil record...". But we do. We have some of the evolutionary steps. In this case they cover the transition rather nicely. The missing steps seem to me to be pretty obvious. Is what you mean to say: "We don't have all of the evolutionary steps in the fossil record." ?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:36 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:33 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 88 (70004)
11-30-2003 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Sonic
11-29-2003 11:23 PM


Re: A few points
Which critisms are you speaking about?
Oh oh! Now I can really tell you haven't read the scientific literature or attended a talk! LOL Nothing gets anywhere without lots of nit picking, detailed, sometimes deliberately pain in the ass critism. An endless steam of "what abouts" and "on the other hand" or "did you consider" or "my approach ..." goes on.
That critism is what I am speaking about.
I subscribe or buy a number of differnt mags. I don't like any that don't have letters to the editor that critise articles and get rebuttals from the original authors. You learn a lot by that.
Thanks for the info and I am presenting a good argument I think. We will see where it goes.
The argument I'm talking about is the "flood did it" one. You haven't (that I've read yet) presented one. In fact, I haven't seen anyone present one yet. An assertion that the flood did it is not adequate.
Validation please?
Are you asking me to educate you on the history too? Do you think I made that up? Will you change your mind if I demonstrate it is true? In other words, why should I bother? I will if it is important or will make a difference.
However, the history is just interesting background. It wouldn't matter how we got here if we take the evidence we have. That bit of history is to help you understand the context that you are working in. If it really would help you I will dig up something for you to read. If you really doubt the validity of what I'm saying I'll dig enough to back it up. OK?
added by edit:
Can Creationists Fit the Flood in a Geologic Framework
This site give you a light description of the time. You can use the names there at the library to, perhaps, find histories or biographies of those involved.
and this site clearly describes Cuvier as a creationist (though not in the sense we now have to use)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:23 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:39 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 88 (70008)
11-30-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Sonic
11-29-2003 11:33 PM


... event by saying that all fossils are just skeletons, which appeared out of no where by removing the dating methods which are at best theoretical.
I noted above that even if the dating is removed then the order of the fossils is still a problem that you have to explain. In addtion, separately from radiometric dating, geologists realized that the earth had to be some number of millions of years old. It was around a century later that accurate, absolute dating became available.
And I suggest you stop making statments that sound a bit arrogant. The comment about, "which are at best theoretical" is what I mean. I think you might start to understand that you know very, very little about these subjects. A bit more humility might be an idea.
And here is another giant one for you to explain:
".. appeared out of nowhere.."
What the heck does that mean?
Note: this is all theory of mine, but for me to switch or adopt a new theory their has to be enough proof showing that it is possible that the fossil record is talking about evolution and not creation.
Just a theory of yours? Based on what? Shouldn't you spend a bit of time learning about what a couple of centuries of research by a large number of people has learned? Then if you find fault with the data and reasoning you can have your own theory. Boy, does that sound arrogant!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:33 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:49 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 88 (70050)
11-30-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Sonic
11-30-2003 3:39 AM


Re: A few points
The flood?, well then direct me to some of your defense against flood webpages, I would like to read them just too see how good they really are.
Read the flood threads here. And the flood is your theory. Defend it first, explain what you think happened and how it produced what you see today. Since, it begins to appear, that no two creationists have the same flood idea it is necessary to know what your's is before we can "defend" against them.
Timeline: You'll have to show what is wrong with the dating before you get to ignore it. Mark has opened a thread for you with some information for you to explain.
EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic.
Let's leave the critisms for now. Those that I am referring to are all through the scientific literature. You don't seem to be keeping up with what is here so you don't have time for anymore I don't think.
Some of our actual practising scientists might direct you to some specific examples. (Come to think of it you can get a laymans idea of how it might work by looking over the great hairy ones discussions about megafauna extinction here, it is not "real" but it gives you an idea )
http://EvC Forum: Overkill, Overchill, Overill? Megafaunal extinction causes -->EvC Forum: Overkill, Overchill, Overill? Megafaunal extinction causes
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:39 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 56 of 88 (70194)
12-01-2003 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
12-01-2003 12:16 AM


How Many
Since you think there needs to be more than "exists", how many exist and how many more need there be for there to be enough?
What is a "balance in the fossil record"? What would you expect it to look like if your ideas are correct as contrasted to what it would look like if the ToE is correct? It is making such distinctions between different ideas and checking them against the evidence that progresses our understanding in science.
Do you have any idea that suggests what there should be and would your idea produce a different outcome than the ToE?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2003 12:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 88 (70303)
12-01-2003 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Sonic
12-01-2003 4:49 AM


I just hope that their is more foundation in the evolutionist world then what you have shown me.
Good grief!!!!
What you have seen is some incrediably tiny part of it all. It is a bit like you have seen a comic book taken from a major city library!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Sonic, posted 12-01-2003 4:49 AM Sonic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024