randman

"How the Hell can we say what genetic mutations caused x evolution from the fossil record? The fossil record does not show this kind of stuff."

Well, I would expect at least an estimate of the differences between species, and this goes to the heart of my doubt. There are major differences between one transition and the other. From what I can tell, you are talking about huge mutations, yet you make a comment on how can we tell. Well, we could observe mutations that we know about, and see if any of those produce the level of change we need. We could experiment with genetic manipulation, and I realize this is happening to some extent, and then try and examine if outside of our manipulation, could these events happen, and would the traits survive. Heck, this could be a testable item for ID. Is intelligent manipulation required to produce the genetic changes needed to make the theory work.
We could ask ourselves why would punctuated equilibrium happen? Why long periods with no mutations, and then suddenly mutations? I am sure this is being done actually.
But the question is assuming one mutation at a time (or maybe not), can we see the mutations represented in the fossil record in the sense of the change.

"Of course, if you set up an impossible standard, you should not complain that nothing lives up to your standard."

Well, my friend, the way you guys present evolution as if it was fact makes the lay-person like myself think you have met the standards of proof. Personally, I think the analogy of God as an artist fits the evidence for me.
I don't see the transitions shown, and I think Gould's comments are right in that respect. He, of course, still tries to get around the implication of them, and has come up with a model to explain the lack of data, but the fact even he and others act like there is no lack of data makes me wonder about the integrity of the whole system.

Valentine Pontifex

Since when? You know, before you start criticizing evolutionary biology you could stop being lazy and at least learn the basics of it.

Could you please list the books by professional biologists on evolution that you read. Why do expect your answer is the empty set.

This has been done. Grab yourself a textbook on evolutionary biology.

randman

I have already read the whole whiney complaint of Gould's, but let's deal with some facts, shall we. Gould makes some comments about the actual data, and then proposes a theory to explain it. Everyone is aware of his conclusions, but critics choose to interpret his data differenty.
Let's look at some of the comments you posted.
"We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages,"

Note the part "cannot be atributed to gradual transformation within lineage" or what might be called micro-evolution. This admittdly can get murky, but Gould is really saying hey, the model of gradualism you guys have presented doesn't fit the record. Species don't appear to change much. What must happen is the changes happen fairly quickly geologically speaking, and probably in isolation so that no fossils are left.

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

"Generally lacking" is far more vague than his earlier statements, but the point is the same. YOu don't see the gradual changes. What you see are extinct species "between larger groups" that evolutionists qualify as transitional. But the actual transitions are not shown.

I think I am understanding Gould. Did you know when he came out with these ideas, most scientists were unaware that stasis was a dominant trait of the fossil record. They had been led to think it was not, falsely led by the way. When I saw how evolutionists rejected for decades Creationists statements on the data, but when one of their own could finally incorprate or try to incorporate the same data into an evolutionary model, and that only then was it acceptable, I pretty much decided, hey, this evolution stuff is propoganda. Moreover, it was obvious that evolutionists hadn't even considered the critics claims about the fossil record, claimd confirmed by Gould.

randman

Cute edit on canines.

Arrowman

Ok, let's do some summing up here.
- 7:24pm randman makes his initial request for info.
- 8:18 pm LV provides 2 cladograms and a link to a source on Vertebrate Phylogeny - the total content of which would take several hours (but only several) to read, more to fully digest and understand.
- 4 minutes later, randman denies LV has made a valid answer; asks LV to simplify the list before he begins his "research".
- 8:36pm randman is referred to the Talk Origins FAQ on transitionals, and another on hominids. Probably an hour or so's reading there.
- 8:57pm randman shifts the argument to quotes.
- Over the next 20 minutes randman is referred to several sources which expose the dishonesty of the creationist quotes, none of which he reads. At 9:17pm randman repeats his assertion that the quotes are valid.
- 9:18pm LV refers randman to another T.O. FAQ on hominids. Add another hour, maybe, to the reading list.
- 9:49pm randman continues to defend the misquotes, apparently without having referred to any of the links provided.

So, randman, in 2 1/2 hours you have been provided with half a dozen pieces of material which are relevant to the questions you have posed, and a sum total of let's say about 5 or 6 hours' reading. People have been very helpful to you.

But throughout that time you have neither read nor promised to read any of the references provided; instead you have simply continued to shift the goalposts and asked people to summarise for you. For Chrissakes how far do you want the story of vertebrate evolution summarised down?!?! The guys have already brought it down to a few hours.

Also, you have been referred to several sources which expose the invalidity of the quotes you have used. Again, you refuse to refer to that material.

Do you think anyone here should take you seriously???

lpetrich

Has "randman" done anything more than read creationists' collections of out-of-context quotes and misquotes? Has he ever read Charles Darwin's Origin of Species? (rather dated, but still good) Has he ever read the writings of any present-day evolutionary biologists? And I mean read the originals, as opposed to creationist quote collections.

Every successful scientific revolutionary had had good knowledge of what had gone before, including whatever previous paradigms he had overthrown. Those who wish to overthrow evolution ought to show a similar acquaintance with the literature on evolutionary biology. But they prefer presenting plucked-out-of-context quotes as if they had never really tried to understand what they had read. Here are some notable examples:

Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were all acquainted with Ptolemaic astronomy; Copernicus and Kepler discovered that heliocentrism was a better fit, and Galileo saw lots of un-Ptolemaic things with his telescope.

Charles Darwin had known about the work of his fellow biologists, many of whom had been creationists, though old-earth ones (young-earthism had been discredited by the 19th cy.). He made a convincing case for evolution by showing that it was much less ad hoc than creationism, and that it could account for many biological riddles in nontrivial ways..

Albert Einstein had worked out special relativity by considering a conundrum that was wracking the brains of his fellow physicists: Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetism were both very successful theories -- and incompatible ones. And experiments agreed with Maxwell rather than Newton where the the two theories made different predictions. His solution was to modify Newtonian mechanics to make it Maxwell-compatible.

randman

I have read the Talkorigens FAQ stuff. The quotes are relevant to the discussion, and I explain why I am not taking the quotes out of context.
Providing a list alone is not what I asked for. Moreover, such lists from time to time have been known to change, which is one reason I don't think much of the way Talkorigins presents things.
The moderator guy on the other thread had some informative links, and I read them, and one of them appeared to debunk one of my links, and I thanked the guy.
Mr Valentine went on either here, or somewhere, to state that I had set my standards too high, thaty what I was asking for was not available.
I appreciate the lists, but what I was looking for is a little more analysis. What I notice is that an extinct species is placed in a list, but the truth is there are always major gaps. The transtions are not fully shown.
On the list Valentine provided, yea, I would expect that one species would be listed having lived from x-y, and then made the following mutations that created species z. That way, we could see if the changes were so great that there is a gap.
What I see is something like hey, there is a whale-like animal with legs over here, and here is one twice the size with no legs.
Well, are we to assume one mutation produced a whale twice as big with legs?
This is just to illustrate my point here, but simply showing a diagram is not proving it's accuracy.

randman

lpetrich
2 things
1. Are you saying the topic of evolution can onky be debated by scientists? I read Darwin a long time ago, but I am sure I am not up to speed on every tidbit, but I am equally sure some of you are dodging issues.
2. It is bogus to claim I am taking Gould out of context. This is typical evolutionist and juvelile tactics. Is PE different than other ideas about evolution or not? I am not taking the guy out of context. I am disagreeing with his conclusions but accepting his data.

l-bow

let s : species
g : genus


s1 -> s2 -> s3 -> s4 -> s5 -> s6 -> s7

|<------- g1 ------>|<------ g2 ----->|


PE says that, for example, the transition between two successive species doesn't appear in the fossil record. However, transitionals can be found on higher levels, such as successive species or genera (plural for genus) or even higher levels of classification.

Vorkosigan

I appreciate the lists, but what I was looking for is a little more analysis. What I notice is that an extinct species is placed in a list, but the truth is there are always major gaps. The transtions are not fully shown.

What is it you want then? A picture of every animal that ever lived?

Do something positive for us, Randman. Go over to Talk.origins. Read the Hominid FAQ. Then tell us why there are no acceptable transitional forms there. Postive arguments. You've been given the info. Now we need you to do a serious discussion of why none of these fossils may be considered transitional.

Michael