RE: Transitional Fossils

RE: Transitional Fossils (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Embedded -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 6:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: Embedded As do microbes just not as sharply defined. Due to HGT. There is no HGT between metazoan species. Right. I agree. My only contention was about your contention that there was NO HGT back in post #89. You had left off the "...between metazoan species." qualifier. quote: quote: For one thing... the nested heirarchy in the most basic sense is something we(humans) construct to simply organize the data. This was done long before Darwin arrived. The nested hierarchy is an objective reality. The human contrivance is in naming species groups. The fact that all animals with hair also have three middle ear bones is not a human contrivance, but naming them mammals is. This is the trouble that baraminology runs into, all taxonomic divisions above the level of species are contrivances and somewhat arbitrary. This is also why biologists have moved away from taxonomy to cladistics. Again I agree. I apologize for not being more clear. One thing I find interesting is that almost all metazoans reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is within the species... in fact one of the definitions of a species is the ability to have viable offspring. Yet, there is "gene transfer" within a given species. It is an important source of variation. quote: quote: The endosymbiosis of mitochondria in the eukaryotic cell was, I think, probably long before multicelled eukaryotes and metazoans. There is transfer of mitochondrial DNA into the host's genome. These sequences are called numt's (nuclear mitochondrial DNA). It is interesting to note that these can be used as phylogenetic markers much like ERV's. Again I agree. The whole nested heirarchy of the tree of life, both morphologicaly and geneticaly, compels me to understand that common descent as the best explanation.

GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 12:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Huh... go figure. What world do you live in then... you know.. the one where you declare all your own assertions as axiomatic? Not at all. Where is the proof? Don't have any and you know you can't so you answer with false accusations. Hardly a rebutal.

GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 12:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method What would that proof be? What else, besides the age and morphological features of the fossil, can we go with? Empirical evidence, other than assuming Darwinism is true and then speculating. There is no empirical evidence. Age and morphological features are great nut they do not prove anything. quote: If a fish with legs is not a transitional between fish and terrestrial tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like? That isn't the question. The question is how do you prove a specific species in the fossil record is in fact a transitional? quote: Because there are still niches to fill in the water. At the time when the first tetrapods were evolving there were a lot of empty niches on land. They evolved to fill those niches, and the lobe finned fish were in the best position to evolve into those niches. And there are still plenty of niches both in and out of water, so...the question remains... quote: The fossils are not speculative or assertions. They are very real. Indeed. No one contends that a fossil exists. That isn't the point. The point is proving transitional status empirically. quote: Without DNA there is no way of knowing the direct relationships between these fossils. We can only go with morphological features. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a mixture of tetrapod and lobe finned fish features if tetrapods evolved from these fish. Guess what we see? A mixture of tetrapod and fish features. A fulfilled prediction. Almost all Darwinistic predictions are made after the fact of discovery. This happened - Oh it was predicted by the theory. This didn't hapen - Oh that was predicted too. Darwinism can accomodate anything. But a theory that can accomodate anything is not falsifiable. quote: Neither does naysaying. Naysaying is not what I'm doing. I'm asking for empirical evidence rather than speculation and saying if you don't have it then it is not a given. quote: Either give us the criteria you are using to judge which fossils are transitional and which are not or simply admit that you will never accept any fossil as transitional no matter how transitional it really is. quote: Not one of you has provided a grain of real evidence or proof. You point out existing species. I could point out more myself and so what?! quote: So why don't we see bats with feathers? Can you explain that? If rm+ns can create all 13Mega species on earth then indeed why are there no bats with feathers? If a fish can be transformed into a reptile and then to a bird - as Darwinists claim, why should there be no bats with feathers as much as dinos with feathers? Or pink elephants for that matter - nothing in Darwinian theory predicts the non-existence of anything at all. It accomodates all and nothing at all. And as such is useless. The MIT physicist Murray Eden, estimates the number of the viable proteins at 10 to the 50th power. The space of all possible proteins of a fixed length (250 residues, recall) is computed by multiplying 20 by itself 250 times (20 to the 250th power). The number is by far larger than all the seconds in the history of the world since the Big Bang or grains of sand on all shores. It would seem that evolution, says Eden, "was directed toward the incredibly small proportion of useful protein forms. . . ," the word "directed". Sounds like intelligent design. quote: One of those steps is Tiktaalik rosae, as has already been stated. Indeed! Yet Tiktaalik itself is a supposed transitional. But has anyone actually provided empirical evidence of this? No. Shown what it's immediate predecessor was? It's sucessors were? No. It's all speculative. And that is the sum of it. And what to do with statements like this: quote: "It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide." (Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006) A clear admission of the "frustratingly wide" "morphological gap". A gap which is admitted as existing every time something new turns up! Explaining how fins morphed into feet by rm+ns is a more important question than just blindly saying, "Looks like some of this and some of that, therefore it's a transitional", which is what Darwinists do without the slightest shame of not having a grain of real evidence, and considering that as proof. DNA now tells us that sharing morphological traits doesn't always mean a species realtion. Indeed the whole of systematics and cladistics is now messed up in their debate of the tree of life. DNA based tree models do not fit morphology based tree models. How does Darwinism explain this? More just so stories and speculations. Any creationist would look at tiktaalik and say, "Interesting species, let's study it.", and not presume anything more that it's being a different extinct species.

GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 1:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes I don't believe it, because it is not true. Proof is only for logic and mathematics. There is no proof in science, only strongly supported and tested theories. And evolution is very strong in this respect. Since I was once a science teacher, I'll ask myself. 'Self, do you agree?' 'Well, me, speaking as someone with the qualifications of a science teacher, I would have to disagree.' Well, I, speaking to myself as an information scientist, would have to say, "Self, this person admits he has no proof and claims none is needed, therefore why should we bother talking to him since nothing need be proven in science?!" End of all possible discussion since nothing in science need be proven. Let us all give up. And fyi, no, macro-evolution has never been tested nor can it be. Unless you can point me to an experiment that demonstrates it - we're not talking adaptations within the family. And, just in case, no micro and macro are not the same and yes more and more real scientists now recognize this. quote: "The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative. The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively." (Sheldrake R., "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance," [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24) • David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091. "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism." • Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.” • Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701. "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution." etc.....

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 1:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Empirical evidence, other than assuming Darwinism is true and then speculating. There is no empirical evidence. Age and morphological features are great nut they do not prove anything. Which do you want? Proof or evidence? Next, the age and morphological features of the fossils IS the empirical evidence. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a mixture of lobe finned fish and basal tetrapod features IF evolution is true. This is not using evolution as an assumption. This is a TEST of the theory. If one were to find a lobe finned fish that had feathers this would falsify the theory of evolution. quote: That isn't the question. The question is how do you prove a specific species in the fossil record is in fact a transitional? Proof is for math and distillation. In science we use evidence. Tiktaalik rosae is evidence for a transition between lobe finned fish and basal tetrapods. Is it proof? No, but proof does not exist in science. There is not one theory that has proof in science. quote: And there are still plenty of niches both in and out of water, so...the question remains... And species are continuing to evolve into those niches. quote: Indeed. No one contends that a fossil exists. That isn't the point. The point is proving transitional status empirically. Then T. rosae fits the bill. It has both fish and tetrapod features which makes it a transitional by definition. quote: Almost all Darwinistic predictions are made after the fact of discovery. This isn't so for T. rosae. The scientists who found this fossil used the predictions of the theory of evolution to find it. They had the fossil Pandericthys at an early date and Icthyostega at a later date. They wanted to find a fossil that was in between these two fossils so they went out and found sediment from the right environment and of an age between Pandericthys and Icthyostega. What did they find? T. rosae, the transition between Pandericthys and Icthyostega just as the theory predicted. Also, if the theory of evolution does not predict that there should be transitional forms why do creationists argue that a lack of transitional fossils falsifies the theory? You can't have your cake and eat it too. quote: Darwinism can accomodate anything. But a theory that can accomodate anything is not falsifiable. Darwinism can not accomodate a bat with feathers, a bird with three middle ear bones, a fish with feathers (I'm sure those flying fish would like them, and penguins seem to get along just fine in the water with feathers), etc. Violations of the nested hierarchy can not be accomodated into Darwinism. quote: Naysaying is not what I'm doing. I'm asking for empirical evidence rather than speculation and saying if you don't have it then it is not a given. It has been presented. The intermediate nature of T. rosae's morphology is the empirical evidence. quote: Either give us the criteria you are using to judge which fossils are transitional and which are not or simply admit that you will never accept any fossil as transitional no matter how transitional it really is. quote: If rm+ns can create all 13Mega species on earth then indeed why are there no bats with feathers? Because feathers evolved in the dinosaur lineage, not in the mammal lineage. Adaptations do not cross lineages because there is no mechanism by which birds and mammals can exchange DNA. This produces a nested hierarchy where adaptations stay within a lineage. However, a designer is free to swap and mix adaptations as the designer sees fit so there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy where ID is concerned. quote: If a fish can be transformed into a reptile and then to a bird - as Darwinists claim, why should there be no bats with feathers as much as dinos with feathers? Because mammals and dinosaurs diverged before the dinosaurs evolved feathers. quote: Or pink elephants for that matter Pink elephants would not violate the nested hierarchy. quote: The MIT physicist Murray Eden, estimates the number of the viable proteins at 10 to the 50th power. This thread is about transitional fossils. quote: Indeed! Yet Tiktaalik itself is a supposed transitional. But has anyone actually provided empirical evidence of this? No. Yes, we have. T. rosae has features from both lobe finned fish and basal tetrapods. It is transitional by definition. If a fish with legs is not transtitional then what would a real transitional look like? quote: quote: "It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide." (Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006) A clear admission of the "frustratingly wide" "morphological gap". A gap which is admitted as existing every time something new turns up! Clack and Ahlberg propose that T. rosae fills this gap. They claim this in multiple papers. If you claim that Clack and Ahlberg are experts then you have no choice but to accept their authority when it comes to the transitional nature of T. rosae. quote: Explaining how fins morphed into feet by rm+ns is a more important question than just blindly saying, "Looks like some of this and some of that, therefore it's a transitional", which is what Darwinists do without the slightest shame of not having a grain of real evidence, and considering that as proof. This is where the fact and theory of evolution are most obvious. It is a fact that these transitionals existed. That is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is that the mechanisms of evolution produced these changes. The theory of evolution (rm+ns) explains the facts of evolution just as every theory should do. quote: DNA now tells us that sharing morphological traits doesn't always mean a species realtion. Why not? quote: Indeed the whole of systematics and cladistics is now messed up in their debate of the tree of life. DNA based tree models do not fit morphology based tree models. How does Darwinism explain this? More just so stories and speculations. Because both trees have missing data. Not every organism's DNA has been sequenced. Not even every species has been sequenced. Not every transition has been observed in the fossil record. Losses of both DNA and morphological features clouds any analysis. They do the best with what they have. However, I have yet to see a gross violation of the twin nested hierarchy. Bats do not nest within the bird clade with any analysis. They always nest within the mammal clade. quote: Any creationist would look at tiktaalik and say, "Interesting species, let's study it.", and not presume anything more that it's being a different extinct species. It is a presumption that T. rosae has both fish and tetrapod features. It is a fact. This makes it's transitional nature a fact.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 2:00:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch End of all possible discussion since nothing in science need be proven. No scientific theory is ever proven. I'm sorry, but you do not understand what science is.

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 2:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes No scientific theory is ever proven. I'm sorry, but you do not understand what science is. To be fair, scientists are guilty of misusing "proof" in secondary literature, documentaries, etc. I have heard many good scientists claim that "this proves such-and-such theory". In such cases, "proof" is synonymous with the court system which uses "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 2:32:34 PM)
Started with this one: quote: • Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701. "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution." Foudn something ironic. Following this, the first sentence of teh first paragraph in the introduction, the purpose of which is obviously to set the stage for discussion below by referring to OTHER papers, is the following piece of irony: " disagreement over the relative importance of natural selection in determining trends over different time scales is eagerly distorted by anti-evolutionist groups to discredit both macroevolution as lacking a mechanism, and microevolution as being restricted to insignificant phenotypic change. The fact that the debate has not been resolved means that a single perspective of selection consistent with both micro- and macroevolution is still needed. In this paper, I propose that no new theory is needed to attain this perspective; rather, it is attained through the broad application of an existing theory with a previously underappreciated significance. " That's all for now.

Embedded -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 4:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch quote: ORIGINAL: Method What would that proof be? What else, besides the age and morphological features of the fossil, can we go with? Empirical evidence, other than assuming Darwinism is true and then speculating. There is no empirical evidence. Age and morphological features are great nut they do not prove anything. Uh... age and morphology (and location) ARE empirical (and scientific) evidence. quote: quote: If a fish with legs is not a transitional between fish and terrestrial tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like? That isn't the question. The question is how do you prove a specific species in the fossil record is in fact a transitional? Easy... ALL fossils are "transitional". Sometimes we don't know what the transition was from or to or how far off of the main branch it is located. It is also true that ALL extinct fossils are "buds" or "leaves" on the bush of life. quote: quote: The fossils are not speculative or assertions. They are very real. Indeed. No one contends that a fossil exists. That isn't the point. The point is proving transitional status empirically. OK. So what would you expect to find if you were looking for a transitional fossil? Where would you expect to find it? What would you expect it to look like? I do not think that if you found a particular fossil that exactly fit your expectations that it would prove that it was the actual transitional BUT it would not dis-prove it either. It would lend support to your hypothesis and confirm, in a small way, that your hypothesis was correct. It would not prove it correct.

GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 4:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch End of all possible discussion since nothing in science need be proven. No scientific theory is ever proven. I'm sorry, but you do not understand what science is. Scientific theory never proven? That explains why we know such much about what is proven in gravitational theory that we can send space ships to Mars or Saturn so precisely. Or calculate the existence of planets we cannot actually see... Right? "do not understand what science is" ? Of course not! No creationist or IDist understands science - even when they have 2 or 3 Ph.D.s. Only evolutionists understand science. Especially evolutionary psychologists right?!! [:D] Gimme a break with this nonsense. If that's the best you can do I see no reason to discuss anything further with you on this thread.

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 4:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch Scientific theory never proven? That explains why we know such much about what is proven in gravitational theory that we can send space ships to Mars or Saturn so precisely. Or calculate the existence of planets we cannot actually see... Right? Gravitational theory explains why masses are attracted to each other, and the theory of gravity is not proven. It had a major overhaul at the beginning of the 20th Century. No one has unified quantum mechanics and relativity which is a big problem for either QM or relativity, or possibly neither. Another big problem is that no one has yet measured a gravity wave. Of course, this is very analogous to the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution were false why are scientists able to accurately predict protein function using the theory in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics? Why were the paleontologists able to predict where T. rosae would be in the fossil record? quote: "do not understand what science is" ? Of course not! No creationist or IDist understands science - even when they have 2 or 3 Ph.D.s. Only evolutionists understand science. Especially evolutionary psychologists right?!! [:D] Gimme a break with this nonsense. If you don't understand that all theories are tentative then you don't understand science.

hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 5:06:16 PM)
quote: Scientific theory never proven? That explains why we know such much about what is proven in gravitational theory that we can send space ships to Mars or Saturn so precisely. Consider whether there isn't a difference between the practical predictions made by formulae and equations and the linguistic metaphors and idiom used to express or describe these equations. Furthermore, is it true that Einstein's theory is proven even in the sense of it being perfectly predictive at current? No, it is not certain. There are some anomalies that are currently being investigated. Further, it was Einstein himself that said, I paraphrase, My theory will never be proven but it may be disproved in any given experiment. I will leave it to someone else to find the original quote, however. The reason why philosphers have spoken of the practical definition of science as being "falsifiability" because inductive logic can never be said to "prove" something in the same way that deductive (contrasted with statistical) mathematics can, but thinkers like Karl Popper felt that science deserved the same level of surety granted by deduction. Thus he found it expedient to emphasize that general propositions (concerning all cases) can be easily disproven through observation of single instances, i.e.: experiments. This, I say, based on my own opinions, but to illustrate teh obvious point that science does not in fact prove anything. I find it equally interesting to comment on the question of whether idioms are demonstrated as valid simply because the equations which it they are designed to described are found to be predictive. Further, I would ask whether idiom is even necessary outside of talking to the press or to laymen, or non-specialists coming from other fields. Such, I say, may not necessarily lend to an understanding of the particular field but even detract from such if taken too literally.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 5:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch End of all possible discussion since nothing in science need be proven. No scientific theory is ever proven. I'm sorry, but you do not understand what science is. Scientific theory never proven? That explains why we know such much about what is proven in gravitational theory that we can send space ships to Mars or Saturn so precisely. Or calculate the existence of planets we cannot actually see... Right? I can prove that there are an infinite number of primes, but I cannot prove that the next apple I let go of will not float up into the air. I do not believe it will float up into the air. I would wager a great deal of money that it would fall. Nevertheless, I cannot prove that it will fall. Neither can anyone else. However, you're right. The great success of spacecraft trajectories strongly suggests that we are pretty close to the right theory of gravity. Similarly, the great success of evolutionary theory strongly suggests that we are pretty close to the right theory of biological evolution. quote: "do not understand what science is" ? Of course not! No creationist or IDist understands science - even when they have 2 or 3 Ph.D.s. You are putting words in my mouth. I only declared that you do not understand what science is. And if you insist that Newton or Einstein proved his theory of gravity, then it is quite clear that you do not understand science.

GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 5:23:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Which do you want? Proof or evidence? quote: Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. quote: Proof- That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration. So we need enough evidence to satisfy a conclusion of the truth of a proposition of transitional status of any given creauture. quote: Next, the age and morphological features of the fossils IS the empirical evidence. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a mixture of lobe finned fish and basal tetrapod features IF evolution is true. This is not using evolution as an assumption. This is a TEST of the theory. If one were to find a lobe finned fish that had feathers this would falsify the theory of evolution. This doesn't work. You could find such a creature, yet it may have no factual realtion to the original. What if you find 3 extant species that fit your notion of transitional? Would you really call the one sharing traits of both a transitional? Even though it's quite obvious that it isn't? Your definition of transitional has to be much more specific - otherwise you end up with tons of extant creatures all being transitionals of other extant creatures. See? Your whole definition of transitional is based entirely upon morphology. Yet DNA, as stated, often tells a very different tale. So yes, you need genetic evidence. quote: Is it proof? No, but proof does not exist in science. There is not one theory that has proof in science. Read answer to the other guy that claims this. This is a pure cop-out answer and nonsense. No proof in science!! Then science is useless. Are you saying mathematics and physics are not science? Chemistry? Of course I would agree that evolutionary biology has no proof, but according to you people doesn't require any. Has it come to that? No need or even possibility of proof in science! Incredible to say the least. This kind of response is called smoke and mirrors. quote: And species are continuing to evolve into those niches. Based on what evidence again? Minor adaptations within the family? Sorry but that doesn't cut it. quote: This isn't so for T. rosae. The scientists who found this fossil used the predictions of the theory of evolution to find it. They had the fossil Pandericthys at an early date and Icthyostega at a later date. This isn't quite complete. If they had not found T.r. they would still have said, "well that fits the theory too" - much evidence in the literature reveals this fact. quote: Also, if the theory of evolution does not predict that there should be transitional forms why do creationists argue that a lack of transitional fossils falsifies the theory? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Interesting point. But it only emphasis the problem. Sure evo predictes things but it predicts millions upon millions of transitionals - something the record does not show - indeed all the forms appear suddenly and without any viable predecessors. Which is why Gould and Eldridge fronted puncutaed equilibria. quote: Darwinism can accomodate anything. But a theory that can accomodate anything is not falsifiable. quote: Darwinism can not accomodate a bat with feathers, a bird with three middle ear bones, a fish with feathers (I'm sure those flying fish would like them, and penguins seem to get along just fine in the water with feathers), etc. Violations of the nested hierarchy can not be accomodated into Darwinism. Wrong. Darwinism would have no problem at all with any species whatsoever. Nested hierarchy is yet another Darwinist hypothesis that is failing fast. quote: It has been presented. The intermediate nature of T. rosae's morphology is the empirical evidence. You point out a single fossil that is speculated to be a transitional and call that giving evidence?! Thankfully courts of justice don't usually act that way! quote: Either give us the criteria you are using to judge which fossils are transitional and which are not or simply admit that you will never accept any fossil as transitional no matter how transitional it really is. Until you show genetic evidence or empirically evidence that shows one species gradually morphing into a new family - no I will not accept any thing touted as a transitional. The underlying assumptions have not been proven so why should I? If you cannot prove the underlying assumption is proven then nothing called a transitional is necessarily such. It's just speculation. quote: If rm+ns can create all 13Mega species on earth then indeed why are there no bats with feathers? quote: Because feathers evolved in the dinosaur lineage, not in the mammal lineage. Adaptations do not cross lineages because there is no mechanism by which birds and mammals can exchange DNA. Indeed, and the day someone finds a fossil of a bat with feathers the theory will well accomodate it, believe me it does so with each new unexpected discovery. quote: Because mammals and dinosaurs diverged before the dinosaurs evolved feathers. Incorrect on your facts there. quote: The MIT physicist Murray Eden, estimates the number of the viable proteins at 10 to the 50th power. quote: This thread is about transitional fossils. Indeed but you should spot the link. quote: Yes, we have. T. rosae has features from both lobe finned fish and basal tetrapods. It is transitional by definition Sure, under a definition that would allow any extant species to be a transitional with many extinct species!! quote: Clack and Ahlberg propose that T. rosae fills this gap. They claim this in multiple papers. If you claim that Clack and Ahlberg are experts then you have no choice but to accept their authority when it comes to the transitional nature of T. rosae. "frustratingly wide" "morphological gap" is the point there which puts a huge question mark over the said authority on T.r. They admit a wide gap then claim by conjecture alone, that T.r. fills the gap. So where are all the others that fill the millions of other gaps that they frustratingly admit exist? quote: DNA now tells us that sharing morphological traits doesn't always mean a species realtion. quote: Why not? jfgi The rest is the same... just more assertions that T.r. is a transitional - still no real evidence amounting to anything near proof. [8D]

essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 6:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: "do not understand what science is" ? Of course not! No creationist or IDist understands science - even when they have 2 or 3 Ph.D.s. You are putting words in my mouth. I only declared that you do not understand what science is. And if you insist that Newton or Einstein proved his theory of gravity, then it is quite clear that you do not understand science. Alternatively (following on Method's earlier comment) perhaps you do not understand what 'proof' means. If "proving something" means to you "demonstrating something with evidence and logical inference beyond a reasonable doubt," then evolution is as 'proven' as the atomic theory.

tbull97580 -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 6:42:58 PM)
It appears that the problem here is one of concise definitions. What would a transitional fossil look like? I.E. One that shows the attributes of both a previous form(fish) and the attributes of a later form(basal tetrapod) of that line? I don't know if this is possible simply because what seems obvious to one side is impossible to the other. Once it's decided that something is impossible no evidence will ever sway that belief. Or at least anything short of miraculous evidence. It seems to me that one could say Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet using the same lack of logic. Simply tell others to prove to you that Shakespeare wrote it and it can't be done. No matter what evidence is placed in front of you say it's circumstantial, hersay, or it's simply an out and out lie. Could you even prove that I wrote this if you didn’t want to believe it? Nobody is able to prove anything to anybody. Only they can make that determination for themselves. Anyway that enough philosophy. Everyone get back to the debate. [:D]

tbull97580 -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 6:45:06 PM)
Who wrote that?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/17/2008 7:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tbull97580 Who wrote that? Post #116 was clearly written by Francis Bacon.

hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 8:38:07 AM)
quote: Are you saying mathematics and physics are not science? Math isn't science. Please define science.

hellohellohi -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 8:44:39 AM)
quote: Nobody is able to prove anything to anybody. Math proves things, whether other's can understand the proofs or not. :)

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 11:23:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GHitch So we need enough evidence to satisfy a conclusion of the truth of a proposition of transitional status of any given creauture. What is the evidence that one can extract from a fossil other than age and morphology? You keep talking about "mutation by mutation steps" but these fossils do not contain DNA. You are asking for evidence that can not exist short of time travel. Also, you talk about "gaps in the fossil record". How can their be gaps if fossils don't show evolutionary change? quote: This doesn't work. You could find such a creature, yet it may have no factual realtion to the original. Read closely. I will repeat this again. The theory of evolution states that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish. Agreed? Next, IF this evolutionary transition did occur THEN there should have been species with a mixture of lobe finned fish features and tetrapod features. I bolded the "if . . . then" to stress that this is a hypothesis, a testable scientific proposition. Agreed? The fossil T. rosae has both lobe finned fish and tetrapod features. This fits the prediction made by the theory. The hypothesis is found to be true and the null hypothesis (a mixture of tetrapod features and a different lineage of fish/vertebrate) is not found. The hypothesis is tentatively true, agreed? quote: What if you find 3 extant species that fit your notion of transitional? Would you really call the one sharing traits of both a transitional? Even though it's quite obvious that it isn't? Extant species sharing a mixture of traits from two divergent taxa ARE transitionals. The platypus is a transitional form between reptiles and placental mammals because it has features from both (egg laying and mammary glands). The platypus evidences the evolutionary transition from reptiles to placental mammals. Fossils do not come with birth certificates. They evidence evolution by displaying mixtures of characteristics. The fossil may be from a species right at the divergence of two taxa or be a dead end lineage started by a species very close to that point of divergence. What matters is that the transitional features are preserved in that lineage. Even Darwin spoke about this in Origin of Species: "In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition." Origin of Species, Chapter 6 quote: finition of transitional has to be much more specific - otherwise you end up with tons of extant creatures all being transitionals of other extant creatures. See? Your whole definition of transitional is based entirely upon morphology. Yet DNA, as stated, often tells a very different tale. So yes, you need genetic evidence. Extant creatures are considered transitional, as I have already said. Now, can you please show me the DNA from T. rosae? quote: This is a pure cop-out answer and nonsense. No proof in science!! Then science is useless. Are you saying mathematics and physics are not science? Chemistry? Mathematics is not science, but physics and chemistry are. If chemistry is built on proof why has the model of the electron changed over the decades? Once it is proven it can't change, right? If it changes then it really wasn't proven, was it? THEORIES MUST CHANGE AS NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT. Once you claim that a theory is proven then it is absolutely true and can not change no matter what the evidence shows. This is why science is useful, it changes to fit the evidence. ALL THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE TENTATIVE, NONE ARE EVER PROVEN. quote: Has it come to that? No need or even possibility of proof in science! Incredible to say the least. This kind of response is called smoke and mirrors. quote: Based on what evidence again? Minor adaptations within the family? Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Based on several observations of macroevolution, otherwise called observed speciation events. Macroevolution is real and observed. Also, Linnaean taxonomy is no longer used. Cladistics are. Linnaean taxonomy is a snapshot of a changing system. It can not incorporate new change in organisms. You never evolve out of your "family". What happens is that the family accumulates more and more variation. Also, evolution does not cause animals to evolve into other families. quote: This isn't quite complete. If they had not found T.r. they would still have said, "well that fits the theory too" - much evidence in the literature reveals this fact. What? quote: Interesting point. But it only emphasis the problem. Sure evo predictes things but it predicts millions upon millions of transitionals - something the record does not show - indeed all the forms appear suddenly and without any viable predecessors. Which is why Gould and Eldridge fronted puncutaed equilibria. What does "suddenly appear" mean? Should transitional fossils slowly fade in and out of existence as we look at them? Should transitional fossils slowly morph from one form to another as we look at them? What Gould and Eldredge stated was that transition between species are very rare due to the tempo of speciation. However, even Gould agrees that transitions between larger groups of species are abundant. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260. I think that quote is for you. quote: Wrong. Darwinism would have no problem at all with any species whatsoever. How pathetic. We give you the potential falsifications of the theory. You then ignore them. Then you turn around and claim that the theory is unfalsifiable. When are you going to debate honestly? quote: You point out a single fossil that is speculated to be a transitional and call that giving evidence?! Thankfully courts of justice don't usually act that way! They do act that way. If a DNA match is made then it is a DNA match, is it not? It is evidence. Here we have a freakin' fish with legs. How is that not transitional? quote: Until you show genetic evidence or empirically evidence that shows one species gradually morphing into a new family - no I will not accept any thing touted as a transitional. The theory of evolution clearly states that species do not evolve into new families. You need to understand the theory before you criticize it. quote: The underlying assumptions have not been proven so why should I? The underlying assumptions of heredity, mutation, selection, and speciation have been proven. They are the facts of evolution. quote: Indeed, and the day someone finds a fossil of a bat with feathers the theory will well accomodate it, believe me it does so with each new unexpected discovery. Which fossils have violated the nested hierarchy? If you are going to criticize others for speculation then perhaps you should not base your criticisms of evolution on pure speculation. quote: quote: Because mammals and dinosaurs diverged before the dinosaurs evolved feathers. Incorrect on your facts there. No, very correct. Feathers evolved in theropod dinosaurs, a lineage that evolved after the divergence with mammals. quote: Sure, under a definition that would allow any extant species to be a transitional with many extinct species!! Extant species are transitional. quote: quote: Clack and Ahlberg propose that T. rosae fills this gap. They claim this in multiple papers. If you claim that Clack and Ahlberg are experts then you have no choice but to accept their authority when it comes to the transitional nature of T. rosae. "frustratingly wide" "morphological gap" is the point there which puts a huge question mark over the said authority on T.r. They admit a wide gap then claim by conjecture alone, that T.r. fills the gap. So where are all the others that fill the millions of other gaps that they frustratingly admit exist? A new fossil was found by Per Ahlberg and company just last month. Nature. 2008 Jun 26;453(7199):1199-204. Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupiòs I. Subdepartment of Evolutionary Organismal Biology, Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18A, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden. per.ahlberg@ebc.uu.se The gap in our understanding of the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapod is beginning to close thanks to the discovery of new intermediate forms such as Tiktaalik roseae. Here we narrow it further by presenting the skull, exceptionally preserved braincase, shoulder girdle and partial pelvis of Ventastega curonica from the Late Devonian of Latvia, a transitional intermediate form between the 'elpistostegids' Panderichthys and Tiktaalik and the Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Ventastega is the most primitive Devonian tetrapod represented by extensive remains, and casts light on a part of the phylogeny otherwise only represented by fragmentary taxa: it illuminates the origin of principal tetrapod structures and the extent of morphological diversity among the transitional forms. Also, how can you claim that there are gaps if fossils do not evidence evolutionary transitions? What if a defense attorney in court claimed that his client was innocent because his DNA was not found at the scene? What if that DNA was then found? Would it be legitimate for the lawyer to then argue that DNA evidence doesn't mean anything? You can't criticize the theory for gaps in the fossil record and then turn around and poo-poo that evidence once it is found. You can not have your cake and eat it too. quote: The rest is the same... just more assertions that T.r. is a transitional - still no real evidence amounting to anything near proof. [8D] Proof is for math and distillation. In the real world scientists deal with evidence. You know, that stuff you continue to ignore.

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 11:29:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tbull97580 It appears that the problem here is one of concise definitions. What would a transitional fossil look like? I.E. One that shows the attributes of both a previous form(fish) and the attributes of a later form(basal tetrapod) of that line? I don't know if this is possible simply because what seems obvious to one side is impossible to the other. I think it is understood by the "other side". This is why they have to retreat to the argument of a mutation-by-mutation account for the transitions made obvious by the fossil record. If you can't win a debate change the debate.

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 12:13:40 PM)
For those of you who do not want to read my lenghty post above perhaps you could answer one simple question. If a fish with legs is not a transitional form between fish and tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 12:37:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method For those of you who do not want to read my lenghty post above perhaps you could answer one simple question. If a fish with legs is not a transitional form between fish and tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like? I believe some here would say that a transitional form would be a fish with legs that had a fossilized genealogy chart clutched in its little bony almost-hands, tracing its lineage back to ancestors without legs.

Method -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/18/2008 1:11:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: Method For those of you who do not want to read my lenghty post above perhaps you could answer one simple question. If a fish with legs is not a transitional form between fish and tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like? I believe some here would say that a transitional form would be a fish with legs that had a fossilized genealogy chart clutched in its little bony almost-hands, tracing its lineage back to ancestors without legs. Not to mention a fossilized list of all the mutations that occurred between it and all of it's past ancestors.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI