Jump to content


Photo

Ad Hoc Storifying


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 August 2017 - 08:07 PM

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING
 
So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!
 
1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION
 
2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM
 
3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL
 
4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS


1. yes, epigenetic changes are known to affect only one generation.

2. in my opinion, this is could be due to an organic catalyst brought into play by transposons/ epigenetics.

3. the nearly neutral theory explains this.

4. non existent can mean the absence of transitionals between phyla.

#22 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 04 August 2017 - 07:55 AM

I'm wondering about three things:

 

1) How many fossils have been unearthed in all of paleontological science? I mean the literal numbers of complete or nearly complete fossils representing recognizable species. Every single one. I'm thinking the number will be huge. In my early days of prowling the Kettlemen Hills fossil beds in California you couldn't sit down on the ground without covering a dozen mollusk fossils with your butt. There must be millions of fossils just there alone.

 

2) Of all the fossils that have been found, how many are considered by evolutionists to be actual, provable transitional fossils?

 

What I'm looking for are actual, real numbers. I'd accept a "best guess" as long as it is an educated guess.

 

3) In a perfect world where every single organism becomes fossilized when it dies, and all those fossils could be found, how many iterations of transition would one expect to see in the fossil record of a dramatic change from, say, ground-dwelling mammal to bat?

 

In other words, if one believes in puncuated equilibrium one might say the answer is just one iteration ... meaning one fossil in the record proves the transition.

 

More realistically, according to gradual change over time, that number would be much larger.

 

So, what is a realistic number for the iterations in a major macro evolutionary change from one species to another?

 

I actually was serious about wanting an educated guess in answer to these questions. I have a reason for asking them, and need them for a further point I'd like to make.

 

Anybody?



#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 August 2017 - 09:10 AM

You're not going to get the numbers. You may have noticed Dave, if there is a question about maths, Piasan or Fjuri will be on it like a duck on a June bug, if they feel it will favour evolution, [mc]but as soon as you ask a question like this it seems they mysteriously lose the ability to count for us.[/mc]. :P

 

( mc = mischief content)

 

On a serious note Dave, the number of fossil species found is astronomical compared to the handful of transitionals offered. But it's more complicated than that of course. It's not just the number found it's comparing the correct type of numbers. If evolution is PE rather than Neo Darwinism then the estimates for transitionals, changes. The problem is it seems evolutionists accept a mix of both theories, or some only accept Neo, and some go for PE.

 

To get a number like that might be difficult but the thing you can count on is an extremely low percentage of fossils are going to be argued to be transitional species, most of the fossils they find usually come in two categories, either extinct forms like dinosaurs, of every kind, which are also missing their transitionals, or species that still live today, which obviously remain unchanged. 

 

But when we think of everything with wings, everything with eyes, every biped, every quadruped, what we find is completed forms, not things evolving into flyers, walkers, seers, etc...even the famous cases like Tiktaalik and the posited whale ancestors and archaeoptic-tricks,(a tongue-twister I hope satisfies "What If" :D ) are better defined as mosaic species, chimeras which have "either/or" features. If you read message 5 here, you will see what I mean;

 

http://evolutionfair...ional/?p=136252

 

Sorry I guess that doesn't answer your question much but it's a difficult one to answer. Where to begin? Has anyone actually counted before? That's why I go for a speculative percentage - we know all of the arguments for transitional species, would fit into one topic, but the number of fossils is truly tremendous, the unequivocal conclusion from my perspective as a person of logic, is that there are so few that the examples are meaningless compared to the VAST number that would have to be absent. This is what many evolutionists don't get - they MUST be absent, it's not actually a matter of debate, to get millions of species and all those that also we find that are extinct, you would need a vast number of transitional inbetweens for all of them. They simply don't exist, and the best conclusion is that they don't exist int he fossils because they never did.



#24 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 04 August 2017 - 02:17 PM

On a serious note Dave, the number of fossil species found is astronomical compared to the handful of transitionals offered.

 

That's the point I was going to make, but I would have wanted to have some quantifiable numbers from the evos in order to drive the point home.
 
Me: How many fossils of any kind have been found so far?
 
Evo: Ummm, not sure ... guessing 29 million?
 
Me: How many truly, provable transitional fossils have been found so far?
 
Evo: Maybe less than 100?
 
Me: How many iterations of every evolved species (in terms of macro evolution) would you expect to have occurred in order for a four-legged mammal to become a bat, for example? Then times that by all the alleged macro evolutionary transitions in all species that have ever occurred.
 
Evo: Hard to say ... but likely in the many multi millions.
 
Me: Then why are there literally millions of fossils found of complete species, and only a handful to be found of literally millions of iterations of transitional species?
 
Evo: [Crickets chirping]
 
Now, if one of the evolutionists on the forum here wishes to correct my numbers I would be happy to reframe my point.
 
However, if I am relatively close with my uneducated best guess, then maybe someone can explain why there is such a huge disparity in the numbers.



#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:56 PM

 

 

Dave: Me: Then why are there literally millions of fossils found of complete species, and only a handful to be found of literally millions of iterations of transitional species?
 
Evo: [Crickets chirping]
 
Now, if one of the evolutionists on the forum here wishes to correct my numbers I would be happy to reframe my point.
 

 

What you will get back is some sort of special pleading. Which basically means any answer they give falls under the category of this faulty reasoning;

 

"we can treat transitionals missing differently to the way we would treat real-life species, so we can expect to find the species but we wouldn't expect to find the transitionals". (double standard)

 

(I'm taking a break from forums now, so sorry if I don't get back to any posts, other members can feel free to discuss it, I myself am not impressed by the modern conjectural escape-attempts for evolution because there is no way to test those claims anyway, it is just basically hot air to save evolution from the fire.)



#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2017 - 05:15 PM

There are about 250,000 fossil species. That’s less than 5% of the number of living species. As its very unlikely that we have discovered more than a tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever existed during the history of the Earth then the number of fossil species described will be only be a minuscule fraction of the true figure.

Fossilisation and/or subsequent discovery of an individual species is therefore extremely rare.

I don’t know how many transitional fossils there are but Wiki has a referenced list of over 200.

Clearly, finding a fossil of a particular species will be biased towards those with the greater temporal and spatial extent. Large populations are most likely to show stasis (because of gene mixing) and persist through time. It’s isolated, peripheral populations in suboptimal habitats that are most likely to be the location of transitioning species.

This is why examples of species level transitionals are rare (though there are examples). But as Stephen Jay Gould said, transitionals are abundant between major groups.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many transitionals are pointed out to you guys, you always want more…. Dismissing them as mosaic species as Mike W does is just running away from the evidence because that doesn’t explain how they appear in the geological record at a time that makes sense (e.g. Archaeopteryx appears after reptiles appear but before birds, rather than say pitching up in the Carboniferous).

 



#27 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 August 2017 - 05:54 PM

There are about 250,000 fossil species. That’s less than 5% of the number of living species. As its very unlikely that we have discovered more than a tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever existed during the history of the Earth then the number of fossil species described will be only be a minuscule fraction of the true figure.

Fossilisation and/or subsequent discovery of an individual species is therefore extremely rare.

I don’t know how many transitional fossils there are but Wiki has a referenced list of over 200.

Clearly, finding a fossil of a particular species will be biased towards those with the greater temporal and spatial extent. Large populations are most likely to show stasis (because of gene mixing) and persist through time. It’s isolated, peripheral populations in suboptimal habitats that are most likely to be the location of transitioning species.

This is why examples of species level transitionals are rare (though there are examples). But as Stephen Jay Gould said, transitionals are abundant between major groups.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many transitionals are pointed out to you guys, you always want more…. Dismissing them as mosaic species as Mike W does is just running away from the evidence because that doesn’t explain how they appear in the geological record at a time that makes sense (e.g. Archaeopteryx appears after reptiles appear but before birds, rather than say pitching up in the Carboniferous).

 

 

"This is why examples of species level transitionals are rare (though there are examples). But as Stephen Jay Gould said, transitionals are abundant between major groups."

 

INTERESTING...

 

Which happens to mean that we dont Observe "Micro"Evolution" in the fossil record, we only observe  MacroEvolution....

 

HOWEVER

 

Today, we only observe "Micro"Evolution BUT NOT "Macro" Evolution..... :burp:

 

 

At what point do you ever consider throwing the whole Mindless MYO Microbe to Microbiologist Myth  INTO THE TRASH CAN where it Belongs?? :smashfreak:


  • mike the wiz likes this

#28 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 04 August 2017 - 06:27 PM

"we can treat transitionals missing differently to the way we would treat real-life species, so we can expect to find the species but we wouldn't expect to find the transitionals". (double standard)

We have to treat past species differently than present ones, because we can’t just go out and count past species directly. We’re limited to finding evidence that they may have left behind. “We looked and we didn’t find anything” has very different implications when the question is “Does this species exist?” than it does when the question is “Did this species ever exist?”

#29 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2017 - 01:32 AM

"This is why examples of species level transitionals are rare (though there are examples). But as Stephen Jay Gould said, transitionals are abundant between major groups."
 
INTERESTING...
 
Which happens to mean that we dont Observe "Micro"Evolution" in the fossil record, we only observe  MacroEvolution....


No we don't only observe macroevolution, only that species transitions are rare, not that they don't exist..as I said.
 

HOWEVER
 
Today, we only observe "Micro"Evolution BUT NOT "Macro" Evolution..... :burp:


So if we observe "micro" evolution today then it is reasonable to assume it happened in the past, yes ?

So we observe macroevolution in the fossil record (obviously it happens too slow to observe in real time - can't help that without a time machine can we ?) and we observe micro today with documented examples in the fossil record also.

So what's your problem ?
 

At what point do you ever consider throwing the whole Mindless MYO Microbe to Microbiologist Myth  INTO THE TRASH CAN where it Belongs?? :smashfreak:


At what point will you sit down and actually learn what the facts are and advance any of your posts beyond repetitive strawmen or mindless mocking ?



#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 August 2017 - 02:24 AM

 

 

Wibble: There are about 250,000 fossil species...............I don’t know how many transitional fossils there are but Wiki has a referenced list of over 200.

 

Let me come out of debate-resting for just one moment. You do realise that if we assume that 200 fossils are transitionals, this means out of 250, 000 fossil finds 0.08% are transitionals?

 

But that is being generous, a lot of the "transitionals" on their list are only assigned to be transitionals, without any proof. For example the closest, "transitional" to an Ichthyosaur, which they would no doubt count as a transitional, is a four legged reptile, but an Ichthyosaur is a sea-reptile with fins, that is homoplastic to a dolphin.

 

So to simply class that as a transitional, would be ludicrous. (so have you checked for each of their claims, if their purported candidates represent any actual "transition", or whether they are just nominated to be transitionals? My experience of evolutionists is that when you look into their claims of transitionals, you find species which are basically simply chosen to represent a transitional, when it seems clear there isn't necessarily any connection between their candidate they call a progenitor, and the, "descendant".)

 

So before I take my rest from debate, I ask the readers this question - if the fossil record is basically a history of life on earth would you expect 0.08% of the fossils found to be transitionals? To my mind, 0.08% of the fossil record should be the creatures we find living on earth today, if history is a history of macro-evolution.

 

Your problem is Wibble, you claim macro-evolution evolved everything we see today, including all mammals, at a time when the fossil record, "recorded" this event.

 

So then logically it is of 100% irrelevance how fragmented that record is.

 

By analogy, imagine if I said to you, "we have 100 bags, and those bags are largely representative of containing tools, and in 100 bags, there are 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys in each bag."

 

Now let us open those bags, knowing they are representative of tools like the fossil record is representative of an evolution of life on earth, but now let us pretend that we only get to choose 5% of the objects since you highlighted that figure.

 

So then 5% of 10,000 is 500. Let us now divide 500 by 100 since there are 100 bags. That's 5 objects we get to pick out of each bag. Now with 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys all evenly mixed (since transitional can occur at any stage in history) imagine if from those bags we got 0.08% tools and 99.92% toys, when there are allegedly 20 toys in each and 80 tools in each.

 

Would we be able to change our conclusion and in fact say the bags largely represent toys? Somehow I think so.

 

If 0.25% would be 1 and 1/4 of a tool, then what would 0.08% represent? It means that if we round it up we found out of 500 selections, 499 toys, and about 90% of the 500th toy, and about one quarter of one tool. So that would be like basically picking approximately 500 toys from the bags, out of our 500 selection, and only picking the head off of a hammer, from one bag. And you think our conclusion should be that this selection represents best, tools? That's hilarious!

 

Toys = Animal kinds, extinct or extant.

Tools = Evolutionary transitionals.

100 bags = 100 "stages" of history. (for arguments sake)

5% of the 10,000 objects = the 5% of the fossils.

 

 

.....I rest my case.

 

[mc]*Applause from the jury*[/mc]

 

(mc = mischief content)



#31 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 August 2017 - 06:37 AM

Part of the point was pretty clearly to smuggle in the assumption that the record is reliable enough to be able to draw a conclusion when something is absent from it.

an interesting observation.

let's try something.

koonin states no transitionals are detectable between animal phyla.
he also states this is a highly publicized enigma.
he discounts (and gives references) the mainstream explanation as unreliable.
let's also make the following assumption:
the fossil record is incomplete by 50% or more.

with the above scenario in mind, how can koonin make his judgement call.

#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 August 2017 - 07:23 AM

"What If" I shall come out of debate-resting for this one infinitesimally small comment. :D

 

The fossil record, even if a fragment is only found, it represents the whole because of percentages. I don't think Popoi or Wibble understand my point, as they repeat the same error it seems.

 

By analogy imagine if I said to you; "This cake, is only a very small piece of the whole cake therefore if your piece of cake tastes sweet this doesn't reflect the whole."

 

That would be the logical error which is to assume that there is something missing which is not representative of the whole cake, in the small piece of the cake. But sugars are in all parts of the cake, so even if we take only one bite from a cake which has a diameter of 55inches, it wouldn't matter, we would expect to find the sugary sweet taste. (Obviously for the sake of the analogy, we assume it is an ordinary cake with sugar throughout,). :rolleyes:

 

In the same way one small piece of the Cambrian, or one small piece of the Cretaceous, some fossils from each, and some fossils from another era, the Jurassic or whatever, while they may only contain a small amount of the "history", nevertheless we reasonably expect there isn't any genuine reason why those small bites would HIDE transitionals from us, especially if that history is supposed to be a history of Neo Darwinism. 

 

So when something is absent from the fossil record, then evolution, like sugar, should permeate that recorded history, so then we should at least be able when we take a bite of the fossil record, to taste the sweetness of the transitional richness one would expect, old boy.

 

This is why I would dearly love it for you to learn what I mean by "special pleading", for notice Popoi and Wibble seemingly do expect to find jellyfish in the fossil record, and don't complain. I guess when it comes to finding jellyfish or octopus or fish or grass or mammals or snails the record is, and I quote "reliable enough", but it isn't "reliable enough" when it comes to finding transitionals. 

 

Lol.

 

"That small piece of history is too small for us to find something like a transitional, only not too small to reveal to us all the same kinds of organisms we presently have, such as pine trees, mammals, fish, snails, insects etc..."

 

Lol!

 

That's what special pleading is. Here is an example of special pleading. Imagine someone chops someone's head off and the murderer goes to jail but now the Queen of England gets annoyed with her servant, and shouts; "AAAAAWWWWFFFFFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!" So she slices his head off. Now imagine in her defence a royalist says; "but it's okay because she is the queen". That's special pleading - when you seek to apply a double standard in a matter, by giving a special but unqualified reason why there should be one standard applied to an individual or a thing, but not to another thing. According to evolution, all species are equivalently fit if they survive - transitionals would be ordinary lifeforms the same as any other, that were selected for, there would be no special different for them, so for example for something that evolved between four legged mammal and bat, those "inbetween" stages, could be more successful and more numerous in their diversity, as the bat or it's progenitor. There is nothing in evolution theory which says transitionals were somehow different organisms, for each organism is a complete organism at each stage of evolution, according to the theory.



#33 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 August 2017 - 08:08 AM

There are about 250,000 fossil species. That’s less than 5% of the number of living species. As its very unlikely that we have discovered more than a tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever existed during the history of the Earth then the number of fossil species described will be only be a minuscule fraction of the true figure.
 

 

"There are about 250,000 fossil species."

 

But that's not what I was asking. The number I am looking for is the number of actual specimens that have been unearthed by all the fossil hunters everywhere throughout time.

 

In other words, just one of your 250,000 species might have a thousand specimens residing in hobbyist and paleontologists drawers, cupboards, boxes and bags. Heck, at one time I had a pretty hefty collection myself from my days prowling fossil beds in California.

 

I know I'm appearing to be pedantic about this, but I want to draw attention to the purely mathematical relationship comparing the number of all fossils found to the number of alleged transitional fossils found -- not species, but actual collected specimens.

 

So if, as one might assume, there would be many, many iterations of transitional species between settled species, why wouldn't the ratio of "found" fossils favor the transitionals?



#34 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2017 - 01:21 PM

Wibble: There are about 250,000 fossil species...............I don’t know how many transitional fossils there are but Wiki has a referenced list of over 200.


 
Let me come out of debate-resting for just one moment. You do realise that if we assume that 200 fossils are transitionals, this means out of 250, 000 fossil finds 0.08% are transitionals?


Yes, I do realize that, thankyou. There are more though, the list on Wiki I roughly counted is a partial list.
 

But that is being generous, a lot of the "transitionals" on their list are only assigned to be transitionals, without any proof. For example the closest, "transitional" to an Ichthyosaur, which they would no doubt count as a transitional, is a four legged reptile, but an Ichthyosaur is a sea-reptile with fins, that is homoplastic to a dolphin.


Nobody is claiming "proof" they are transitionals. However, they fit the predictions of evolution. At the end of the day we have many fossils with intermediate characteristics between different groups that appear in the geological record at the right time. It is only your prejudice (your admission that nothing could make you accept evolution)that prevents you accepting them as evidence.

By the way, there is a putative ichthyosaur ancestor that isn't a four legged reptile
http://www.sciencema...ur-got-its-fins

  

By analogy, imagine if I said to you, "we have 100 bags, and those bags are largely representative of containing tools, and in 100 bags, there are 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys in each bag."



Your problem here, and in the next post where you give the analogy with the cake is that you are continuing to ignore all of what I have said about speciation in small, isolated populations. Though you actually "liked" a fairly recent post where I tried to explain it and agreed it was reasonable, now you revert back to the strawman.

For a better analogy, think of a dartboard at which you throw darts without aim but randomly. The bullseye represents the isolated population where a species transition is occurring. The rest of the board is the widespread, parent population which remains in stasis. Throwing a hundred darts, only a very small percentage will likely hit the bullseye. Your strawman is where every segment of the dartboard from 1 to 20 represents a transition between two species in the main population, where a wholesale species transformation is unlikely to occur.

#35 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2017 - 01:50 PM

 

There are about 250,000 fossil species. That’s less than 5% of the number of living species. As its very unlikely that we have discovered more than a tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever existed during the history of the Earth then the number of fossil species described will be only be a minuscule fraction of the true figure.

 
"There are about 250,000 fossil species."
 
But that's not what I was asking. The number I am looking for is the number of actual specimens that have been unearthed by all the fossil hunters everywhere throughout time.

 


Don't know, I doubt if anyone has bothered estimating a number. Almost all fossils observed are left in situ in the rock because the vast majority are shelly invertebrates in marine sedimentary layers (as you would expect with a secular view but not with a global flood drowning all the continents.)
 

So if, as one might assume, there would be many, many iterations of transitional species between settled species, why wouldn't the ratio of "found" fossils favor the transitionals?


Because individual geological strata tend to represent a few million years of relatively stable environmental conditions where species tend to remain in stasis. Therefore the vast majority of fossils found will be deposited during these periods. Sudden changes in species composition in an overlying stratum will represent an inward migration of species not an in situ rapid evolution of the main population. This probably occurs relatively rapidly in peripheral, small populations which, by its nature, is unlikely to be recorded in the fossil record, especially considering variable sedimentation rates. But don't forget there are examples of incremental species transitions in the fossil record where sedimentation was likely to be fairly constant ( I have mentioned the Micraster sea urchin lineage in Cretaceous chalk several times on this forum and it has always been ignored)



#36 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:26 PM

However, they fit the predictions of evolution.

oh man, they don't build howlers big enough for this one.
how in the world can an incorrect paradigm predict anything?

everything koonin, noble, oakley, glansdorf, and lynch said just went in one ear and out the other hasn't it?

it matters not that there are no transitionals, or it's highly likely we may never solve abiogenesis, that animal phyla arrived here radially ready made, that the genetic code has undergone little, if any, evolution.
none of that matters does it.

#37 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:48 PM

 

However, they fit the predictions of evolution.

oh man, they don't build howlers big enough for this one.
how in the world can an incorrect paradigm predict anything?

everything koonin, noble, oakley, glansdorf, and lynch said just went in one ear and out the other hasn't it?

it matters not that there are no transitionals, or it's highly likely we may never solve abiogenesis, that animal phyla arrived here radially ready made, that the genetic code has undergone little, if any, evolution.
none of that matters does it.

 

 

I don't understand where you get the idea there are no transitionals from these scientists and I'm not actually sure you understand what is meant by the classification Phylum. And what's abiogenesis got to do with any of this ?



#38 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 August 2017 - 04:15 PM

I don't understand where you get the idea there are no transitionals from these scientists . . .

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. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

and I'm not actually sure you understand what is meant by the classification Phylum.

koonin certainly knows what is meant by it, and he uses the term interchangeably with body plans.

And what's abiogenesis got to do with any of this ?

god said he created life, science has been unable to prove he didn't.
the only real thing left for evolution is macro evolution, and so far science has no evidence of that either.
now we find that there's a good chance the genetic code has undergone ZERO evolution.

like any creditable scientist, i must say there is a natural explanation to all of this.
we will never find that explanation if we pretend the above doesn't exist.

#39 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2017 - 04:49 PM

 

I don't understand where you get the idea there are no transitionals from these scientists . . .


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. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

 


You need to expand your research beyond constantly parroting the same things from the same paper and obsessing over what Koonin says. The origin of phyla in the Cambrian may be problematic due to lack of fossil evidence but you do understand there are many transitionals within Phyla, don't you ? (and Koonin no doubt agrees)
 

and I'm not actually sure you understand what is meant by the classification Phylum.



koonin certainly knows what is meant by it, and he uses the term interchangeably with body plans.

 


Yes but do you know what a Phylum is ? I didn't ask whether Koonin knows.
 

god said he created life, science has been unable to prove he didn't.
the only real thing left for evolution is macro evolution, and so far science has no evidence of that either.


In one ear, out the other huh ?



#40 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:23 PM

You need to expand your research beyond constantly parroting the same things from the same paper and obsessing over what Koonin says.

i have close to 500 megabytes of texts, pdf's, and web pages in my evolution folder and over 210 bookmarks on evolution.
i believe it gives a pretty good synopsis of what evolution is.

The origin of phyla in the Cambrian may be problematic due to lack of fossil evidence but you do understand there are many transitionals within Phyla, don't you ? (and Koonin no doubt agrees)

instead of arguing this away, or waving your hand and saying "poof, there it is", how about an explanation?
in my opinion, the answer is simple, really simple.
epigenetics activated a transposon catalyst.
maybe?
 

Yes but do you know what a Phylum is ? I didn't ask whether Koonin knows.

i love this line of questioning, because it's completely irrelevant.
it isn't what i think a phylum is, it's what koonin thinks it is.
he uses the term interchangeably with body plans.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users