Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Feb 20, 2015.
I responded to this. Can we get GeoffP to comment before I reply to everyone? I really respect him.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Evolution can't explain consciousness and the existence of life after death or reincarnation.
Also if a man lives to a paranormal age, say 250 years of age, then how can evolution explain how this man lived to be 250 years old at the time of his death?
It's a good thing for evolution that we do not have a reliable account of any of those things.
Evolution doesn't need to explain "the existence of life after death or reincarnation", since neither have been shown to actually exist.
Why would anyone expect science to explain "paranormal" events?
By definition paranormal is outside the remit of science.
Plus, of course, what you're doing here is castigating science for not explaining something that, so far as we know, has never happened.
You do me too much honour. Which is it you wish me to respond to? Convergent evolution, Equus, or other?
Ardipithecus appears to be the definitive "missing link" from tree dweller to upright walking. The fossils are dated about 4.5 MYA, considerably older than the specimen you refer to.
The key evidence is feet that have clearly evolved for efficient, comfortable bipedal walking. They retain only one prehensile toe, allowing the creatures to speedily climb back into the trees to escape danger, but there's no way Ardi could be an arboreal acrobat like the chimpanzees and today's other non-human apes.
The location of the site indicates that these first walking apes were forest dwellers and ate a herbivorous diet augmented by the protein in arthropods and other very small animals, like all of today's non-human apes. This shoots down the common notion that they lived on the savannah, bobbing their heads up to search out large herbivores to hunt and then crouching back down to avoid being another carnivore's lunch.
Exactly! And have you ever seen Star Wars? How does evolution explain Wookies?
Hi friend. Care to respond to post #45? Or at least just the parts I replied to you.
It does shoot down the notion they lived on the savannah. It does not specify their diet, and in fact indicates with fairly high probability that they foraged and fed in other ways and on other things than the other great apes do today.
This is a really interesting example for Ophiolite's thread on the creationist tendency to argue from authority.
GeoffP is not a creationist. I'm not arguing from authority.
Well, if you dug up an alien or a demon holding a shovel and a fossil, that would probably be something to talk about. I will say that evolution would require some incredibly powerful evidence to contradict. The masses of evidence behind evolution are impressive. One might as well try to argue against gravity, IMHO.
We humans? Which features do we have that we could not possibly share with a common ancestor of something else in the Mammalia? Call your examples.
List away. Which explanations, and which claims?
Convergent evolution is nothing to dismiss. Animals living in similar environments sometimes evolve similar structures. Fins, wings, eyelessness: the list is immense.
There are no structures that are 'irreducibly complex'. If you think otherwise, present some.
It is certainly indirect evidence at the least. Animals of increasingly distant presumed phylogenetic relationship have increasingly different sequences. Chromosomal order and reorganisation also bears this out. If each organism were specially created for each environment, why should they share DNA sequence? If they occupy a similar niche - say, flight - with another, unrelated organism, why is their DNA sequence more like relateds without such abilities? Why is a bat a rodent, and share more DNA with rodents than it does with a bird? Surely if they were specially created to occupy such a niche, there would be no reason for them to share so much DNA with a flightless relative. One could even design a better bat with bird DNA. In fact, why have bats at all? Why should they exist, and be related to rodents instead of birds?
I gave the line a cursory glance and found that most of the earlier species in the Eohippus progression were found in North America. Which members did you mean?
Darwinian evolution (descent with modification) is not known to be incorrect. If you wish to falsify it, do so.
Side comment: bats are not rodents. I would not be surprised if they were closer to rodents than birds, nevertheless, though - your point stands.
Bats are mammals, so of course they're going to share more DNA in common with other mammals than they are with birds.
I always cringe when fellow "evolutionists" use the evolution of the horse as an outstanding example of evolution. The problem is that the original lineage that emerged from fossils found in the Americas (including at least one example discovered by Darwin) and popularised by Huxley, was greatly over simplified and arguably wrong. If we look, today, at the detail, at the many branches, at the occasional reversal of trends, then an accurate and informative picture emerges. Unfortunately too often it is the simpler, outdated and inaccurate model that is introduced and that - quite rightly - is dismissed by creationists.
Well fuck me. All right, I forgot that bit of Mammalogy. Jesus. Oh well, it's been a long week already. Fucking Chiroptera. And their origin isn't clear but supposed to be closer to Primates with a position double speciation event. Ah well: a small rodentlike ancestor, anyway. Fuck it, I call all that Rodentia and I don't care. Stem group. Bah.
You could just have said "Rats!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What about rabbits? When I was a kid they were rodents but later I read they were booted out of that club. Who /what is their "kissing cousin" now?
Fossils are discontinuous data, and therefore will create a discontinuous theory, by default. The theory of discontinuous change is correct based on the discontinuous data that is available. One is not allowed to use data that is not there to form another theory.
As an example, I have done on many occasions; We will make large continuous design with popcorn in the park. We will leave the popcorn design for one year, so the birds, bugs and animals can pick at it. It will also be subject to rain, wind, snow and some foot traffic. One year later, we come back to see the popcorn fossils that remain. These fossils are genuine specimens. However, the original design is no longer what it used to be. It now looks far more fragmented and discontinuous.
Say I had taken a picture of the design, to prove it was continuous. But my hard drive crashes and the picture is lost. Those who collect the popcorn fossils, who never saw the original design, will not be able to see the original design on the data that remains; draw this conclusion on their own. The hard data that is left is better explained by a discontinuous design that has more gaps and much more crooked lines. This is not an intentional misrepresentation of the original design, but rather is a default inference based on the hard data left, that is a subset of the original data.
As a simple example of this fossil effect on theory, the whole data (original popcorn design) is John and Jim like to debate. When they debate, they both get very excited. This leads to heated arguments and even to fist fights. After they burn off their steam, they both settle, laugh together, and have a beer together. They always leave as friends, as close as brothers.
I will not fossilize this data design into four different random ways, based on what the birds and bugs eat. You tell me what is the best interpretation of reality based on each fossil set. Remember these fragments are all the data we have, with the original picture lost.
1) John and Jim like to debate. When they debate they get very exited leading to heating arguments and fist fights.
2) John and Jim like to debate. They laugh together and have a beer together.
3) After John and Jim burn off steam, they laugh and have a beer together.
4) John and Jim like to debate, They always leave as friends as close as brothers.
The inference defaulting nature, of partial data, is often used as a political tool. When each side of a debate tries to help their own political party, they will present fossil facts, but will leave out other facts, if these are not favorable. They present the fossil data set they need, so the best possible conclusion from this data, is what they want you to conclude.
If I want you think John and Jim are enemies I will use fossil data set 1. If I want you to think they are loving brothers who like to intellectually joist in debate, I will use fossil data set 4. If I want then to look like two college boys out on the town on Saturday night, I will use fossil data set #3.
Analogies don't work when they fail to match reality.
Separate names with a comma.