Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 11:35 AM

"Hey, randman, here's a picture of me when I was a baby."

"It'll take pictures of you from every day of your life from then to now for me to believe that's you!"

[Later]

"OK, randman, here's the pictures - 10,000 of them, I'm afraid."

"No, not pictures, I want video! A video recording of your entire life from then to now!"

[Later]

"OK, randman, here's the damn video!"

"Hmm, wait, there's gaps between frames in this video! Still no good."

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Kosh · 03-07-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morat:
Haven't you figured out what Randman wants here? He wants every single transition between two species.

You want to show a bird/dinosaur? He wants an example of every change, no matter how small. If you went from small feathers, to big feathers, he wants in-between sized feathers.

The fact that the fossil record isn't that fine grained notwithstanding.

So, you think he just set up a "featherman" so
he can think he's smart, stumped the creationists,
and re-inforced his choice in the only TRUE
religion in the world?

Buh Bye Randman!

randman · 03-07-2002, 01:47 PM

It's not just that the steps are missing, it is the fact of stasis within the life-span of th e species that is coupled with the lack you speak of.
This is where you guys are ignoring the evidence. You assume evolution happened so you don't bother to examine facts that might contradict your beleifs.
Gould beleives in evolution, but he recognizes that what we see in the fossil record is "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment, and leave no fossils of these changes behind until viola, we have another "sudden appearance."
Whereas his theory creatively offers up an explnation for the lack of evidence, another explnation is more plausible to my mind.
You don't see these changes because they did not happen, and the reason most species show such little change is they are not evolving in the macro-sense.

l-bow · 03-07-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
It's not just that the steps are missing, it is the fact of stasis within the life-span of th e species that is coupled with the lack you speak of.
This is where you guys are ignoring the evidence. You assume evolution happened so you don't bother to examine facts that might contradict your beleifs.
Gould beleives in evolution, but he recognizes that what we see in the fossil record is "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment, and leave no fossils of these changes behind until viola, we have another "sudden appearance."
Whereas his theory creatively offers up an explnation for the lack of evidence, another explnation is more plausible to my mind.
You don't see these changes because they did not happen, and the reason most species show such little change is they are not evolving in the macro-sense.

randman,

Since you seem to accept PE, does this mean God creates every single specie? How do you then square that with your previous statement that you think homo erectus is a human. If God created every single specie, then shouldn't homo erectus be considered a separate (non-human) creation?

MrDarwin · 03-07-2002, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
That depends on what you mean by transitional forms.

You seem to have missed that I'm asking your opinion on "transitional forms". If taxon A really did (for the sake of argument) evolve into taxon Z, how would you suggest paleontologists recognize possible fossil intermediates? What do you think? What would you expect them to find? For example, if birds really did evolve from dinosaurs, would there be any hope whatsoever of recognizing the fossils of the species transitional between them? Is there any evidence that could exist in the real world that you could possibly find convincing, or even compelling?

If you are really suggesting that you would only accept the entire series of fossils of species from species A to species Z, then you are putting yourself in the very safe position of never having to risk being convinced, because convincing you would be quite impossible, since no evolutionary biologist claims to have all the fossils. But the questions still remain:

(a) Why are fossil birds different from modern birds?
(b) Why are the oldest fossil birds less like modern birds than younger fossil birds?
(c) Why do the oldest fossil birds share more characteristics with dinosaurs than they do with modern birds?
(d) Why were there dinosaurs that were more similar to early birds than many modern birds are to each other today (e.g., hummingbirds and penguins)?
(e) Why are some dinosaurs so similar to early birds, even to the point of having feathers?
(f) Why do molecular studies show that birds are more closely related to reptiles than they are to any other vertebrate?

The data are there. The questions are raised. Paleontologists (in fact virtually all scientists) have answered them one way: creatures change over time, and one group has give rise to another. If you have different answers to these questions, I'd like to hear them.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

hammegk · 03-07-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DougI:
So let's take a particular species and view the transitionals:
Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Procetus, Kutchicetus, Durodon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Cetotherium, Squalodon, Kentridiodon and Odebenocetops. Although there is a direct lineage fitting into the time line will you conclude these are transitionals or just stay in cretinist denial?

Err, is "cretinist denial" a scientific term?

from <a href="http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,1034,NAV4-42_SAR1472,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,1034,NAV4-42_SAR1472,00.html</a>

Quote:

The paleontologists thought that ancient whales were members of an extinct group of highly-specialized ungulates (hoofed mammals) called mesonychians. Mesonychians were meat eaters and ranged in size from the size of weasels to grizzly bears. The most important evidence
was in the similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans. Molecular biologists favored artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates such as cows, pigs, camels, deer, and hippos) as the ancestors of cetaceans. These scientists said cetaceans are a sister group to hippos because they share more DNA than do whales with any other land mammal.

Recent Fossils Show Whales Descended from Hippo-like Animals

��

Of course, any hypothesis that's based on fossils that are tens of millions of years old is bound to have problems. The similarity in cetacean and mesonychian cranial and dental morphology becomes a question. Was this the result of convergent evolution or was it a feature that was shared by a very early common ancestor to the three groups (cetaceans, mesonychians, and artiodactyls) but was lost in later artiodactyls? Also, the DNA analysis favors a sister-group relationship between whales and hippos but, morphologically, hippos are closer to artiodactyls than whales. Therefore, the relationship between whales and hippos remains unclear. The answers will likely come from as-yet-undiscovered fossil finds.

The basic thought that mutations occur is not under dispute except I guess by YECs.

The point skeptics of evolution-as-the-only-cause make is summarized by the high-lighted section, with disclaimers as to actual validity of the assertions.

Why is it incorrect to interpret the data such that what is by definition 'evolution to a sequence of new species' (over 50 million yrs) could be taken as a similar set of mutations that currently separate chihuahuas from Great Danes (after a few thousand years)?

Or, basically 'whale critter'='whale critter'..
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Late_Cretaceous · 03-07-2002, 06:14 PM

I refuse to believe that chihuahuas and great danes have a common ancestor. Proove it. Where it the transtionals between chihuahuas and Great Danes? Show me the transitonals.

Oh, BTW, I really got a laugh from the "transitionals and intermediates are not the same thing" arguement.

Tell us please. WHat the hell it a transitonal or intermediate by your definition.

Vorkosigan · 03-07-2002, 07:18 PM

So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment, and leave no fossils of these changes behind until viola, we have another "sudden appearance."
Whereas his theory creatively offers up an explnation for the lack of evidence

Gould's idea is that species can sometimes go for long periods with little overt morphological change. Note that the fossil record shows little about behavior, so that the sober scientist will be careful to limit her statements to what she can prove. Even today, working with modern skeletons, a lion and a tiger are hard to tell apart even by an expert, but their behavior is radically different. So the "stability" is morphological. There's nothing in the fossil record to directly show that their behavior did not change.

There is nothing in Gould's idea that contradicts evolution. "Sudden appearance" refers to the fossil record, which is incomplete. "Sudden" can mean 4,000 years, or 10 million years, depending on context. A paleontologist discussing the repopulating of the post K-T world may talk in millions of years being "sudden," while a biologist working with Lake Victoria Cichlids might see "sudden" speciation in the emergence of new species in less than 4,000 years (<a href="http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/wacbay.html" target="_blank">scroll down to bottom to read about rapid speciation in Lake Waccamaw and Lake Nabugabo</a>). "Sudden" is not a technical term.

Gould, like everyone else, believes that sometimes speciation is so rapid it leaves little behind in the fossil record. This is easy to see in the case of Lake Nagubago -- what are the odds of finding any fossils from that one span of geological time when the cichlids in Lake Nagubago were isolated from the brethren in Lake Victoria?

Transitions between species are rare, because fossils of individual species are rare, period. However, transitions between higher order taxa are common, such as the mammal reptile and others you've been provided with.

randman, it's really time. Put up the best argument for the Flood from AiG. Answer some of the questions.

Michael

HRG · 03-08-2002, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]It's not just that the steps are missing, it is the fact of stasis within the life-span of th e species that is coupled with the lack you speak of.
This is where you guys are ignoring the evidence. You assume evolution happened so you don't bother to examine facts that might contradict your beleifs.

Maybe you do not understand what Gould et al. actually say about the facts ?

Quote:

Gould beleives in evolution, but he recognizes that what we see in the fossil record is "stasis" and "sudden appearance."

1. Gould says himself that there are examples of gradual evolution. He presented an example in is testimony in court.
2. "Sudden" is to be understood on the geological scale. 10,000 to 50,000 years is "sudden".

Quote:

So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment,

Since there are actual examples for this process (observed speciations), it is not a "postulate".

<snip>

HRG.

MrDarwin · 03-08-2002, 05:50 AM

Moderators, I am requesting that this discussion be locked, so that Randman will not be distracted from the discussion started by Patrick:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">Randman says we've ignored AiG's "best arguments"</a>

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

03-07-2002, 11:35 AM	#51
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	"Hey, randman, here's a picture of me when I was a baby." "It'll take pictures of you from every day of your life from then to now for me to believe that's you!" [Later] "OK, randman, here's the pictures - 10,000 of them, I'm afraid." "No, not pictures, I want video! A video recording of your entire life from then to now!" [Later] "OK, randman, here's the damn video!" "Hmm, wait, there's gaps between frames in this video! Still no good." [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-08-2002, 05:50 AM	#60
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Moderators, I am requesting that this discussion be locked, so that Randman will not be distracted from the discussion started by Patrick: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">Randman says we've ignored AiG's "best arguments"</a> [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2002, 01:47 PM	#53
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	It's not just that the steps are missing, it is the fact of stasis within the life-span of th e species that is coupled with the lack you speak of. This is where you guys are ignoring the evidence. You assume evolution happened so you don't bother to examine facts that might contradict your beleifs. Gould beleives in evolution, but he recognizes that what we see in the fossil record is "stasis" and "sudden appearance." So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment, and leave no fossils of these changes behind until viola, we have another "sudden appearance." Whereas his theory creatively offers up an explnation for the lack of evidence, another explnation is more plausible to my mind. You don't see these changes because they did not happen, and the reason most species show such little change is they are not evolving in the macro-sense.

03-07-2002, 06:14 PM	#57
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	I refuse to believe that chihuahuas and great danes have a common ancestor. Proove it. Where it the transtionals between chihuahuas and Great Danes? Show me the transitonals. Oh, BTW, I really got a laugh from the "transitionals and intermediates are not the same thing" arguement. Tell us please. WHat the hell it a transitonal or intermediate by your definition.

03-07-2002, 07:18 PM	#58
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	So he postulates that species go for very long periods of time with relatively no change at all, but then a small group of the species undergoes a relatively rapid evolutionary develoment, and leave no fossils of these changes behind until viola, we have another "sudden appearance." Whereas his theory creatively offers up an explnation for the lack of evidence Gould's idea is that species can sometimes go for long periods with little overt morphological change. Note that the fossil record shows little about behavior, so that the sober scientist will be careful to limit her statements to what she can prove. Even today, working with modern skeletons, a lion and a tiger are hard to tell apart even by an expert, but their behavior is radically different. So the "stability" is morphological. There's nothing in the fossil record to directly show that their behavior did not change. There is nothing in Gould's idea that contradicts evolution. "Sudden appearance" refers to the fossil record, which is incomplete. "Sudden" can mean 4,000 years, or 10 million years, depending on context. A paleontologist discussing the repopulating of the post K-T world may talk in millions of years being "sudden," while a biologist working with Lake Victoria Cichlids might see "sudden" speciation in the emergence of new species in less than 4,000 years (<a href="http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/wacbay.html" target="_blank">scroll down to bottom to read about rapid speciation in Lake Waccamaw and Lake Nabugabo</a>). "Sudden" is not a technical term. Gould, like everyone else, believes that sometimes speciation is so rapid it leaves little behind in the fossil record. This is easy to see in the case of Lake Nagubago -- what are the odds of finding any fossils from that one span of geological time when the cichlids in Lake Nagubago were isolated from the brethren in Lake Victoria? Transitions between species are rare, because fossils of individual species are rare, period. However, transitions between higher order taxa are common, such as the mammal reptile and others you've been provided with. randman, it's really time. Put up the best argument for the Flood from AiG. Answer some of the questions. Michael

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.