Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[leopold]

Leopold, there is not a 'complete absence of intermediary forms'. Every form in a group is an intermediary of something and the differences are not so vast. Ayala was misinterpreted.

you didn't read the file i uploaded did you.
it was niles eldridge that says there are no transitional fossils.
this corroborates what ayala said in the science article, and explains WHY he would say such a thing.
like i said, i've come up with 2 more possible sources, i just have to find them.

 

[Randwolf]

it was niles eldridge that says there are no transitional fossils.

I read it leopold. Are you quoting Eldridge in relation to the development of the horse? The bit that finishes in the next column? Is that what you're on about as to Eldridge saying "there are no transitional fossils"? Yes or no?

 

[leopold]

I read it leopold. Are you quoting Eldridge in relation to the development of the horse? The bit that finishes in the next column? Is that what you're on about as to Eldridge saying "there are no transitional fossils"? Yes or no?

no, that's a separate issue.

 

[Randwolf]

no, that's a separate issue.

Oh, sorry. In my haste I must have completely missed the quote from Eldridge about no transistional fossils. Care to point it out to me?

 

[leopold]

ahhhh, chocolate covered cherries.
i bought 4 boxes of the damned things and can't stop eating them.

 

[leopold]

Oh, sorry. In my haste I must have completely missed the quote from Eldridge about no transistional fossils. Care to point it out to me?

first column, near the bottom.

 

[billvon]

you didn't read the file i uploaded did you.
it was niles eldridge that says there are no transitional fossils.

No, he didn't say that. That's another Leopold Lie. What he said was "the pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." He is referring to 100% gradualism, not the absence of transitional fossils.

A good article on quote-mining (and a good guide to what Eldredge was really saying) -
============
Gould and his colleagues are widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents "no transitions." To creationists this is taken to mean that there are no evolutionary links between "created kinds." But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document.
===========
"Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" Laurie R. Godfrey. Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81.

 

[Randwolf]

I don't see a quote there leopold. I see a reporter's interpretation of a suggestion. Why do you consider reporters to be the ultimate authorities on evolution?

 

[billvon]

first column, near the bottom.

Good article from Gould on this topic. Your misunderstanding is bolded.
=========================================
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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.

 

[leopold]

I don't see a quote there leopold. I see a reporter's interpretation of a suggestion. Why do you consider reporters to be the ultimate authorities on evolution?

oh, i don't know, maybe it's because everyone gets to use personal websites to trump respected sources.

so, you got basically the same thing from 2 different sources.
the science article mentions these gaps no less than 3 times, but refers to them as "typical"
this in itself implies there might be some, but not many.

the article i uploaded seems to confirm this observation, but goes a step further as proclaiming none exist.

billvon,
you are more obnoxious than paddoboy is.

 

[billvon]

you are more obnoxious than paddoboy is.

Sorry. Do I post too many factual items? Or is it that I just don't believe your lies?

 

[matthew809]

Evolution explains our development from single cell organisms to current organisms quite well. We see it in use every day; indeed, principles from evolution are used in everything from crop hybridization to computer programming. We can see organisms evolve in the lab, and we can even see very basic synthetic life evolve.

This micro-evolution that is seen in the lab is not only consistent with the theory of evolution, it is also consistent with the theory of intelligent design/creation.

This is why the broad term "evolution" should not be used when debating with someone who thinks the distinction between micro-evolution(observable) and macro-evolution(not observable) are important.

Proclaiming evolution as being "seen in the lab everyday" is deceiving and counterproductive.... you could just as rationally say that creationism is seen in the lab everyday(micro-evolution) .

It seems disingenuous to take advantage of the fact that the name of your overall theory happens to also be the same word used for a proven part of your theory and the unproven part. The distinction of micro and macro should always be used when it is pertinent to do so.

 

[billvon]

Proclaiming evolution as being "seen in the lab everyday" is deceiving and counterproductive.... you could just as rationally say that creationism is seen in the lab everyday.

No, it's not. Creationism requires divine intervention. No such event is observed in a lab.

It seems disingenuous to take advantage of the fact that the name of your overall theory happens to also be the same word used for a proven part of your theory and the unproven part.

Do you believe there is a difference between microerosion and macroerosion, too?

 

[Randwolf]

This micro-evolution that is seen in the lab is not only consistent with the theory of evolution, it is also consistent with the theory of intelligent design/creation.

No it's not.

This is why the broad term "evolution" should not be used when debating with someone who thinks the distinction between micro-evolution(observable) and macro-evolution(not observable) are important.

Why not? They are simply subsets of mechanisms affecting evolution. Who says (besides you) that the term evolution is not applicable?

Proclaiming evolution as being "seen in the lab everyday" is deceiving and counterproductive....

No it's not - it is a statement of truth - enlightening and constructive. Enhancing understanding is laudable - ducking and covering the way creationists tend to is disingenuous. What is your word for the processes observed in the lab that normal people refer to as "evolution"?

you could just as rationally say that creationism is seen in the lab everyday(micro-evolution) .

You could, except that would be deceiving and counterproductive. And most certainly irrational, nearly by definition.

It seems disingenuous to take advantage of the fact that the name of your overall theory happens to also be the same word used for a proven part of your theory and the unproven part. The distinction of micro and macro should always be used when it is pertinent to do so.

Theories aren't proven. Therefore your statement is meaningless gibberish.

 

[leopold]

Good article from Gould on this topic. Your misunderstanding is bolded.
=========================================
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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.

after reading this a few times, i have a question.
what the hell is a "transitional fossil between groups"?

 

[Billy T]

How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. ... evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, ... This paper will examine mutually reinforcing evidence from nine independent areas of research.
1. Paleontological evidence
The paleontological evidence comes from studying the fossil sequence from terrestrial mammals through more and more whale-like forms until the appearance of modern whales. ...

2. Morphological evidence
The examination of the morphological characteristics shared by the fossil whales and living ungulates makes their common ancestry even clearer. ...
3. Molecular biological evidence
The hypothesis that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals predicts that living whales and closely related living terrestrial mammals should show similarities in their molecular biology roughly in proportion to the recency of their common ancestor. ...

4. Vestigial evidence {All sections are long. Here is but a part of this one, but it has figures showing the big hind legs of the land animal are now just unconnected useless tiny bones, "floating" in muscle mass; but you need to go to link to see, as figures of fossil stages do not post here.)
The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.

Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.

Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. In many, it is merely the size of a thin piece of string, about 1 mm in diameter, and often pinched off about midway. All whales have a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears - a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing. The diaphragm in whales is vestigial and has very little muscle. Whales use the outward movement of the ribs to fill their lungs with air. Finally, Gould (1983) reported several occurrences of captured sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs.

5. Embryological evidence
Like the vestigial features, the embryological features also tells us two things. First, the whale embryo develops a number of features that it later abandons before it attains its final form. How can creationism explain such seemingly nonsensical process, building structures only to abandon them or to destroy them later?
6. Geochemical evidence
The earliest whales lived in freshwater habitats, but the ancestors of modern whales moved into saltwater habitats and thus had to adapt to drinking salt water. Since fresh water and salt water have somewhat different isotopic ratios of oxygen, we can predict that the transition will be recorded in the whales' skeletal remains - the most enduring of which are the teeth. Sure enough, fossil teeth from the earliest whales have lower ratios of heavy oxygen to light oxygen, indicating that the animals drank fresh water.

7. Paleoenvironmental evidence
Evolution makes other predictions about the history of taxa based on the "big-picture" view of the fossils in a larger, environmental, context. The sequence of whale fossils and their changes should also relate to changes observed in the fossil records of other organisms at the same time and in similar environments.
8. Paleobiogeographic evidence
The geographic evidence is also consistent with the expected distributional patterns for the whale’s first appearance and later geographic expansion. We would expect terrestrial species to have a more restricted geographic distribution than marine species,

9. Chronological evidence
The final strand of evidence in our mutually consistent picture of whale origins comes from a consideration of why the whales originated when they did. Evolution is a response to environmental challenges and opportunities. During the early Cenozoic, mammals were presented with a new set of opportunities for radiation and diversification due, in part, to the vacuum left by mass extinctions at the close of the Cretaceous Period.

SUMMARY: Mutual re-enforcing observed facts from nine different scientific fields of study, all supporting one ToE, is not worth a grain of faith for the ToE deniers. They know evolution is false, their bible told them so. God made the universe and all that is in it in six days. God, like the automobile industry, made many different models and of course some are similar to others.

But for others who reason, the link with long discussion of these nine fields reaching the same ToE position is a good read.

 

[zgmc]

This might help. Plenty of transitional fossils are talked about in this article.

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

 

[davewhite04]

So how do we know that a "transitional" fossil isn't just another species fossil, rather than the fossil in question? macro evolution did happen, bur MUCH faster than we think...Look at what man has achieved in just 6000 years! Something 6000 years ago(roughly) released the power of our imagination and we learnt to talk. That is either evolution or God or both. I say God.

 

[matthew809]

Do you believe there is a difference between microerosion and macroerosion, too?

I assume that's a rhetorical question.
What I will take away from it is that you believe macro-evolution is so obvious that we don't even require proof of it. That sounds religious to me.

To make this analogy a little more relevant to the discussion, an example of micro-erosion would be my ever-sloping back yard, while an example of macro-erosion would be Mount Rushmore.

 

[Bells]

So how do we know that a "transitional" fossil isn't just another species fossil, rather than the fossil in question? macro evolution did happen, bur MUCH faster than we think...Look at what man has achieved in just 6000 years! Something 6000 years ago(roughly) released the power of our imagination and we learnt to talk. That is either evolution or God or both. I say God.