Jump to content


Photo

Defining "transitional"


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 31 January 2017 - 05:06 PM

So it's not that I am saying, "evolution is false because of this", I am just saying that the sophistry some evolutionists use to make the variations in new generations seem like they are transitions of evolution, is flushbunking codswallop.

yes, i agree wholeheartedly.
i think i alluded to this earlier when i said "what evolutionists are hoping is that you apply this to macro evolution".
so far, science has been unable to demonstrate how body plans change.
this could change in the next 5 to 10 years or so.
science now has the tools to cut and paste DNA at its whims, you can be sure it won't be long until science comes up with a scenario, if there is one.

BTW, this cutting and pasting is achieve by the cells own mechanisms, it wasn't created in the lab and then applied to the cell.
genetic palindromes are probably key sequences in this operation.

#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 February 2017 - 12:03 AM

it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.but that is all you would have, you would need a series of them.there apparently isn't this series in the fossil record.although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".this evidence must be genetic in nature, and genetic analysis requires a great deal of statistics.so, let the buyer beware.



"although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".


Not this again... Lets beat that dead horse some more and see if that ol nag can come back to life again..


Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

You are all over the map.. I still dont have any idea where you are coming from ir if you are just pushing buttons for entertainment..

#23 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:17 AM

Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

i haven't seen the evidence, but i assume that a large part of it is the commonality of DNA to all life.
koonin uses the term overwhelming.
james tour, a creationist, uses the term impressive.
OTOH, science has been unable to demonstrate it.
plus, we have glansdorf saying LUCA appears to be a community of prokaryotes.
you be the judge.

You are all over the map..

yes, i'm trying to touch all the bases.

#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:29 AM

 

 

What If: science now has the tools to cut and paste DNA at its whims, you can be sure it won't be long until science comes up with a scenario, if there is one.

 

I'd bet one million pounds they won't come up with any evolutionary answer to the design in organisms. They never have. Darwinian evolution is a victorian story, think how many failed predictions there are now. Think how many times they've had to say, evolution mark 2, evolution mark 3.

 

We are on 3 now, with a mixture of punctuated equilibrium and neo. First it was natural selection, so they used glue to make evolution work and called it neo-Darwism. Then when it was too obvious that stasis is all we see and they have to come up with at least some attempt to make it fit evolution, they used sellotape and called it punctuated equilibrium.

 

By analogy what does this remind you of? I can think of an analogy. Imagine I said to you that an orange snooker ball exists. (there is no such thing as an orange ball in snooker.), so I said, "well, we can't see one on Bob's table, so let's check the pockets."

 

No joy, no orange ball in the pockets. Excuse 1 gone.

 

Okay, so maybe Bob keeps the orange ball and doesn't use it, and that's why we see all the other balls but not the orange because simply by choice he prefers to not play the orange. Okay, so let's look around his house, in all his hiding areas. So we search the whole house and find squat.

 

Excuse 2 gone. Beginning to see a pattern here? It's like Mikes Summers says, all you need is an imagination in order to propose any number of possibilities but what about the little thing called, reality?

 

So finally we say, "AHA! We shall check the snooker set box, because each ball has a compartment, we can fit all of the balls into their place and there will be one compartment left empty where the orange ball should go!"

 

So we put all the balls in the box and there is no space for the orange. 

 

Question; At what stage do we conclude there is no orange ball?

 

For example, do we go so far as to say; "well, Bob must have got a snooker set custom made, because he didn't want to use the orange ball, so he got one with one less compartment and has now lost his orange ball or put it in the trash, which is obvious because it would make sense for him to lose it if he no longer uses it."

 

So from my perspective, there is no macro evolution, it only exists in the sense that an orange snooker ball exists. If you can give me a reason to believe the orange ball exists, then I will also believe evolution does.



#25 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 February 2017 - 11:36 AM

it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.but that is all you would have, you would need a series of them.there apparently isn't this series in the fossil record.although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".this evidence must be genetic in nature, and genetic analysis requires a great deal of statistics.so, let the buyer beware.


"although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".


Not this again... Lets beat that dead horse some more and see if that ol nag can come back to life again..


Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

You are all over the map.. I still dont have any idea where you are coming from ir if you are just pushing buttons for entertainment..


I feel like We are playing a game called "Whack a Mole" You pop up, get smacked down, pop up again somewhere else, get smacked down.. And up you come again.. Ignoring or forgetting the continued smack downs from before.. Over and over again....

Let me repeat again There exists ZERO Evidence for UCA for all Flora and Fauna that conforms to the Scientific Method... If you think differently, please present it.. But you wont.. Because you cant.. Because it DOESNT EXIST....

Btw...Just typing the word "Epigenetics" isnt going to cut the mustard on this forum....

#26 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 February 2017 - 01:15 PM

I'd bet one million pounds they won't come up with any evolutionary answer to the design in organisms. They never have. Darwinian evolution is a victorian story, think how many failed predictions there are now. Think how many times they've had to say, evolution mark 2, evolution mark 3.

i don't look for it to ever happen.
science will be able to reconstruct the cell, but it will be nonfunctional.
to have one or two highly improbable events would be acceptable, but to have a series of them?
plus, the difficulties are the result of the problem, it isn't technical or a lack of research.
the problem is apparently presenting impossible scenarios.

another good thing is, up until recently evolutionists had the luxury of being able to explain away things with mutation/ natural selection, apparently without evidence.
current research is going to show how these changes happen on a genetic level.
one of the first things they've found is that natural selection, although important, does not explain macro evolution.
as a matter of fact, changes occur the fastest when natural selection is almost absent.

another thing evolutionist can't use is algorithms of efficient design to model the cells genetic machinery.

another is species aren't the durable units of evolution, it appears families or phyla are.

We are on 3 now, with a mixture of punctuated equilibrium and neo. First it was natural selection, so they used glue to make evolution work and called it neo-Darwism. Then when it was too obvious that stasis is all we see and they have to come up with at least some attempt to make it fit evolution, they used sellotape and called it punctuated equilibrium.

i believe PE is explainable if epigenetics is some kind of feedback process.
this is my take on the situation,
the genome without epigenetics has a slow decay rate.
epigenetics provides feedback to keep DNA along the straight and narrow.
at the same time, it has been able to amass a large storehouse of sequences that work.
there comes a time to where epigenetics can no longer provide this feedback.
this results in, not one or two transitions, but possible 5 to 50.
the genes were already preseant, but epigenetics was able to produce sequences which produced novel proteins.
gene mutation/natural selection isn't how evolution works.

So from my perspective, there is no macro evolution, it only exists in the sense that an orange snooker ball exists. If you can give me a reason to believe the orange ball exists, then I will also believe evolution does.

i believe epigenetic research, especially with CRISPR, is going to show us exactly how this is done.
IOW, the demonstration of common ancestry would be achieved.
be aware that the above starting with "i believe" is only a guess,

#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 February 2017 - 01:43 PM

I guess I see it differently, I think based mostly on two things, apart from faith.

 

1. Logic.

2. Facts.

 

It seems to me, the miraculous is all around us, and intelligent design answers for all of these things. I don't think epigenetics provides macro evolution, the anatomies in organisms are the result of intelligent design, not genetics, IMHO, the genetics are just the instructions to build X or build P, but this says nothing about how clever the solutions are.

 

I don't think there are any answers in the minutia of things. Because things are so complex on a genetic level, that is like a can of worms where you can get lost in a forest of teleological versus natural cause. What is clear is that everything is done on purpose. The blood clotting cascade is done on purpose. The parabolic jet of the archer fish is done on purpose. Our eyes being in the right place is done on purpose, the amount of lungs, eyes or legs is done on purpose. All of it shows purpose. The genetics is a means to an end, so you have to ask yourself, what is the end?

 

Do you have it? The end is anatomy. That is the piece of the jigsaw you always seem to leave out, because you are tangled in the forest of genetics, thinking the answers are in the micro-level, because of it's innate complexity.

 

It's just a means to an end. Like with a computer, all of the complicated programming is ultimately to give you something which is really simple. Therefore the end result is the purpose of the complexities of the minutia-level.

 

Another danger with minutia, is that you can get lost on that level, and never zoom out to see the big picture. That is why they look for evolution on that level, they search for a complex reason why X fact can only mean macro evolution because they know that in a forest it is likely you will find that thing which you seek. (observer bias).

 

That's me done for now, I am a bit tired with forums.


  • Blitzking likes this

#28 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:01 PM

I'd bet one million pounds they won't come up with any evolutionary answer to the design in organisms. They never have. Darwinian evolution is a victorian story, think how many failed predictions there are now. Think how many times they've had to say, evolution mark 2, evolution mark 3.

god probably has nothing to do with evolution except maybe the creation of life.
you have to remember mike, that atoms and molecules follow a set of physical laws.
as far as i know, you cannot have a natural compound where the atoms can't combine with one another.
for example:
the compound neon uranium will never exist in nature.

as far as darwin goes, he died, and a good part of his theory died with him.
i would imagine that a large part of darwins observations was the result of transposons and epigentics, and neither of them are "accumulating changes" nor are they any kind of progress from point A to point B

the nearly neutral theory is the predominate theory of evolution.
correction:
According to Ohta, however, the nearly neutral theory largely fell out of favor in the late 1980s, because the mathematically simpler neutral theory for the widespread molecular systematics research that flourished after the advent of rapid DNA sequencing.
- https://en.wikipedia...cular_evolution
some will call it the new synthesis, or the third synthesis, or the extended synthesis.
darwin just needs to go away and let us get this done.

#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 February 2017 - 12:03 AM

i haven't seen the evidence, but i assume that a large part of it is the commonality of DNA to all life.
koonin uses the term overwhelming.
james tour, a creationist, uses the term impressive.
OTOH, science has been unable to demonstrate it.
plus, we have glansdorf saying LUCA appears to be a community of prokaryotes.
you be the judge.
yes, i'm trying to touch all the bases.

 

"i haven't seen the evidence,"

 

You are in very good company... Neither has anyone else.

 

"But i assume that a large part of it is the commonality of DNA to all life."

 

Yes, everyone who believes in the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man

Myth of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna "assumes" as much as well..

BUT, That is why the Scientific Method was established in the first place... To weed out

the assumptions from the real Science.. :blink:

 

But as we say here is the USA, when you "Assume",  you make an ASS out of U and ME... :acigar:



#30 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 February 2017 - 09:48 AM

"i haven't seen the evidence,"
 
You are in very good company... Neither has anyone else.

the evidence exists, others have reviewed it.
a creationist scientist calls this evidence impressive.
 

"But i assume that a large part of it is the commonality of DNA to all life."
 
Yes, everyone who believes in the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man
Myth of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna "assumes" as much as well..
BUT, That is why the Scientific Method was established in the first place... To weed out
the assumptions from the real Science.. :blink:
 
But as we say here is the USA, when you "Assume",  you make an ASS out of U and ME... :acigar:


are you saying that you never assume things?
a very simple example:
your friend asks you to pick them up somewhere.
you leave so you can get there exactly at the time they want you there.

you have just made at least 2 assumptions:
1. your friend will be there when you get there.
2, since you left "just in time" you are assuming you won't have any car trouble.

#31 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 February 2017 - 08:41 PM

I see,

BECAUSE

I assume that my friend will be where he says at a certain time and my car will make it there on time..

THEREFORE

That means that I should assume that Godless Evolutionists are right and The Judeo Christian God of the Bible is either A Myth or a Liar when it comes to Man's origins Even Though they NEVER Produce any Evidence that conforms to the Scientific Method????

I should just ASSUME that the Up until Now Non Existant Evidence Exists just like I ASSUME that my friend will be there Becasue Atheists Assure me that it Really Exists (But Cant EVER provide any)


Let me give you a word of advice...If some people from Nigeria send you an Email that says you won a lottery and assure you it is Legitimate, What ever you do Don't ASSUME it is.....

I hope that helps your confusion
..

#32 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 February 2017 - 09:11 PM

That means that I should assume that Godless Evolutionists are right and The Judeo Christian God of the Bible is either A Myth or a Liar when it comes to Man's origins Even Though they NEVER Produce any Evidence that conforms to the Scientific Method????

i'm not saying that at all.
i meant to point out that people make assumptions all the time without realizing it.
as far as god goes, science has been unable to locate a god nor have they located a source for it's intelligence.
this doesn't really mean anything though because science might be unable to deal with the nature of god.

Let me give you a word of advice...If some people from Nigeria send you an Email that says you won a lottery and assure you it is Legitimate, What ever you do Don't ASSUME it is.....

i don't.

I hope that helps your confusion
..

i'm curious to know what kind of genius put the cell together.
what exactly is the nature of life?

#33 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 February 2017 - 01:42 AM

i'm not saying that at all.
i meant to point out that people make assumptions all the time without realizing it.
as far as god goes, science has been unable to locate a god nor have they located a source for it's intelligence.
this doesn't really mean anything though because science might be unable to deal with the nature of god.
i don't.
i'm curious to know what kind of genius put the cell together.
what exactly is the nature of life?

 

"i'm not saying that at all.
i meant to point out that people make assumptions all the time without realizing it.
as far as God goes, science has been unable to locate a god nor have they located a source for it's intelligence.
this doesn't really mean anything though because science might be unable to deal with the nature of God.

 

Correct, Science IS unable to deal with the nature of God, Who tell us he lives outside of the Time Space and Matter Continuum (The physical realm) that "Science" is limited to by Nature..

 

 

"i'm curious to know what kind of genius put the cell together."

 

A supreme intelligence agent that far surpasses man's understanding.

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

"what exactly is the nature of life?"

 

Another question that "science" will never be able to deal with.

 

https://evolutionthe...ublic/Home.aspx



#34 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 04 February 2017 - 03:20 AM

Actually the Tiktaalik fin looks to me like some of the bones are more rugged, there seems to be some similarity to that of tetrapods. I would say it is fair to at least say as an evolutionist; "it is the type of evidence we might expect if it's on it's way to being a tetrapod".

The real problem is, how do we differentiate? I think the answer is, that we might also expect it's head to be transitional from fish's head/girdle, attached as one unit. The complex transitional changes are never seen. The simple ones seem easier to say are transitions.

This is what is happening and is what happens, they just seem to find a myriad of species which all have parts from each. For example artiodactyls have some whale-like features, but then so do oil birds and bats, for they also have echolocation.

So I am not so unfair as to say, "this fin is NOT an expected evidence", as I don't pretend to have knowledge I don't have. Heck I don't know for sure, no-one can so I wouldn't say it doesn't qualify as such, but it isn't clear-cut really, I think if it didn't evolve you could still claim it is a transition but my question to you is, what if it wasn't, but just is an appearance of transition? It's a strong possibility, where organisms are between environments, that they will look like transitionals.

 

Before you get too impressed with the fin of Tiktaalik, allow me to throw in my two cents worth. Tiktaalik is a Sarcopterygian (lobe finned) fish which, unlike Actinopterygian (ray finned) fish where the distal radials all extend from the pectoral girdle, have a single bone (humerus) attached to the pectoral girdle, which bifurcates into two more bones (radius and ulna). These are presumed to be homologous with the corresponding bones in tetrapods, and are one of the main reasons it is assumed that tetrapods evolve from them. However, let's look at some of those "nitty gritty" details.
As I've mentioned before, my main interest in fish is only in occasionally catching and eating them. But since Tiktaalik gets thrown out so often as an example of a transitional form, I figured I had better do some digging :P . I was able to duplicate Daeschler et al's results pretty closely in TNT using explicit enumeration.
Attached File  Daeschler_et_al_2006-TNT Results.jpg   164.17KB   0 downloads

Many of the character distributions are scattered, and there are several that are unique to Tiktaalik. I may post all of the character maps some time in the future, but one of their characters is particularly relevant with regard to the supposed transitional status of Tiktaalik and its pectoral fin. That's character 93: "Branched_radials_distal_to_the_ulnare".

Attached File  Daeschler_et_al_2006-Character-93.jpg   87.15KB   0 downloads

 

This is unique to Tiktaalik, and I'll illustrate what they mean by that. Here is figure 3 from Boisvert, Mark-Kurik, & Ahlberg's paper "The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits". I've color-coded the bones for ease of reference and comparison.

Attached File  nature07339-f3.2-colored.jpg   222.45KB   0 downloads
a is Eusthenopteron, b is Panderichthys, c is Tiktaalik, and d is Acanthostega.

The first three are Sarcopterygians, and the last is an amphibian tetrapod. If you look at Eusthenopteron, a single bone, the humerus (green), comes from the pectoral girdle. That bifurcates into two bones, the radius (light blue), and ulna (yellow). The posterior ulna then bifurcates into two bones, the intermedium (dark blue), and the ulnare (orange). The posterior ulnare then bifurcates into two distal radials (brown), and the posterior one of those has an additional bone on the end of it. Notice how all of the bones are added to the posterior edge of the fin? Panderichthys has a similar pattern, but then has an additional string of bones added to the anterior distal radial.
Tiktaalik, however, takes this posterior branching pattern to even greater lengths. The ulnare splits into four bones, and the large central distal radial then splits into three, with the central of those splitting into two. This is what they are referring to as the radials distal to the ulnare being branched. The problem is, this is the exact opposite of what you would expect with a pectoral fin that is supposedly transitioning into the limb of a tetrapod. The expansion and development of bone needs to be on the anterior side extending out from the radius. Tiktaalik is off on its own (derived) tangent when it comes to the development of the pectoral fin.
Boisvert, et al had this to say in their summary:

 

Given that recent phylogenies consistently place Panderichthys below Tiktaalik in the tetrapod stem group, it is surprising to discover that its pectoral fin skeleton is more limb-like than that of its supposedly more derived relative. In Tiktaalik, like in ‘osteolepiforms’ and rhizodonts (more primitive fish members of the stem group), the ulna and ulnare are of similar size. The axis of the fin comprises two more elements distal to the ulnare, and the distal radials are arranged pinnately around this axis. In contrast, in Panderichthys and tetrapods, the ulna is much longer than the ulnare, the ulnare is the last axial element, and the distal radials/digits are arranged in a transverse fan shape (Fig. 3). It is difficult to say whether this character distribution implies that Tiktaalik is autapomorphic, that Panderichthys and tetrapods are convergent, or that Panderichthys is closer to tetrapods than Tiktaalik. At any rate, it demonstrates that the fish–tetrapod transition was accompanied by significant character incongruence in functionally important structures.

 

Unfortunately, the carpal bones of Acanthostega were either unossified (cartilaginous) or not preserved. As far as I know, no manus has been found for Elpistostege or Ichthyostega either. We do, however, have the manus of a close relative of theirs, Tulerpeton. Here is figure 8F from Lebedev and Coates' 1995 paper on Tulerpeton. I've reversed the figure to match the orientation and color-coded it as well.
Attached File  Tulerpeton--Lebedev-1995-Fig-8F-Reversed-Colored.jpg   162.23KB   0 downloads
Compare that to the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik and ask whether it's even reasonable to claim that the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik is evolving into the limb of a tetrapod. The idea that it's "transitional" is just wishful thinking and doesn't hold up under a close, critical scrutiny of those "nitty gritty" details. :D


Edited by Bonedigger, 18 July 2017 - 03:04 PM.
Replaced obsolete Photobucket embeds


#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 February 2017 - 03:59 AM

Brilliant BD. 

 

 

 

Boisvert:  It is difficult to say whether this character distribution implies that Tiktaalik is autapomorphic, that Panderichthys and tetrapods are convergent, or that Panderichthys is closer to tetrapods than Tiktaalik

 

Oh here we go. (How about neither) ;)

 

So basically if I have understood it right, because Panderichtys has more of an anterior progression, so to speak, going in the wrong direction towards Tiktaalik but the right direction towards tetrapods, we can probably conclude that the more posterior emphasis in Tiktaalik means it would be on the end of your fishing rod, rather than caught in a mouse trap by way of cheesy nibbles?

 

I think a better explanation is probably chimeric/mosaic features. I was being conciliatory towards Popoi to be honest as sometimes I feel guilty because I know I must come off as almost dogmatic in my refusal to accept anything evolution says, as I thought that technically speaking you could at least make a case that "evolution might expect similar evidence."

 

But for those reasons you have explained, you can make a better case for chimeras. There are just so many mosaic features, shared designs, you must have come across hundreds in your bone-studies, I predict they will always be complete features, or more adequately described as, "either P or X or T" rather than BETWEEN P/X/T.



#36 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2017 - 01:10 PM

. . . my refusal to accept anything evolution says, . . .[/font]

and you would be somewhat correct.
i never believed there could be a multiple origin scenario until i read glansdorfs paper.
the yale report i posted, where the lead scientist refused to surrender his data.
ayala and his quote in science.
the insurmountable problems with abiogenesis.
the failure of science to demonstrate common ancestry.
even though epigenetics has been suspected since at least 1970, the framers of the modern synthesis refused to make provisions for it in the theory.

you don't need to feel guilty at all mike
 
 

But for those reasons you have explained, you can make a better case for chimeras. There are just so many mosaic features, shared designs, you must have come across hundreds in your bone-studies, I predict they will always be complete features, or more adequately described as, "either P or X or T" rather than BETWEEN P/X/T.

that's apparently what the evidence shows.
the first life appeared, then the individual lineages branch shortly after with little to no "evolution" since.
from koonin:
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.

The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma.
Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier [36,37], the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable [38]. In an already familiar pattern, the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

#37 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2017 - 04:32 PM

that's apparently what the evidence shows.
the first life appeared, then the individual lineages branch shortly after with little to no "evolution" since.


Recognizable modern phyla didn't appear until over three billion years after the first life is recorded in the rocks. You call that a short time ? And little or no evolution after those phyla appeared ? Really ?



#38 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2017 - 04:59 PM

Recognizable modern phyla didn't appear until over three billion years after the first life is recorded in the rocks. You call that a short time ?

koonin says they were "hatched" in a geological instant.
 
 

And little or no evolution after those phyla appeared ? Really ?



mostly, yes.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, families or phyla are.

remember, there are 2 ways we can go about this.
the single origin scenario or the multiple origin scenario.
since there are no intermediates between these lineages and LUCA, then either of the above is equally possible.

#39 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 February 2017 - 05:23 PM

koonin says they were "hatched" in a geological instant.


Why are you so obsessed by a single scientist ?

Yeah most of the modern phyla appeared (at least in the fossil record) during the Cambrian explosion, over a period of about 20 million years
 
 
 

mostly, yes.
species aren't the durable units of evolution, families or phyla are.


Of course the broader classification is going to be more durable. What's your point ?
 

remember, there are 2 ways we can go about this.
the single origin scenario or the multiple origin scenario.
since there are no intermediates between these lineages and LUCA, then either of the above is equally possible.


Never heard of this multiple origin stuff you bang on about.



#40 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2017 - 09:02 PM

Yeah most of the modern phyla appeared (at least in the fossil record) during the Cambrian explosion, over a period of about 20 million years

that's why words like "suddenly" and "explosion" is used in connection with this phenomenon.
where do you get 20 million years?

Of course the broader classification is going to be more durable. What's your point ?

speciation isn't evolution, the creation of new phyla is.

Never heard of this multiple origin stuff you bang on about.

copy/paste the following into your search engine:
The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htm

if you can't find it, let me know and i'll upload it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users