Jump to content


Photo

Avian Precursors In China?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:13 PM

I took the opportunity to peruse the Internet yesterday in search of the supposed avian precursors of Archaeopteryx found in China. I was not impressed and will use this as a springboard to drive a point home. In the first place, at least 80% of the pictures were artists’ renditions, obviously embellished to make the animal look more reptilian than it is. Secondly, the actual photos of the fossil reveal relatively poorly preserved specimens. Extensive elaboration is made on the apparent “transitional” features, but the reader is forced to just trust whatever paleontologist interprets, rather than to see for himself. Suggestions are made that the feathers were used more for insulation than for flight. If the evidence is so convincing, why is the unbiased observer not provided with actual high resolution photos so he can judge for himself? The suggestion is made that the bird was a poor flyer, but no evidence is provided.
Paleontologists have the annoying habit of attaching far more to a fossil than is actually there. My question is, If evolution was so abundant in the past and if the fossil record is replete with examples of transitional forms, why do paleontologists go to such extreme measures to try to force a poorly preserved fossil of very questionable credibility into a “missing link” category?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 October 2005 - 08:13 PM

I took the opportunity to peruse the Internet yesterday in search of the supposed avian precursors of Archaeopteryx found in China.
I was not impressed and will use this as a springboard to drive a point home. In the first place, at least 80% of the pictures were artists’ renditions, obviously embellished to make the animal look more reptilian than it is.


What do you think they should have looked like?

Obviously if one only has the bones, the rest is based on current understanding of the time. The important point you should really drive home is that the drawings are acknowledge artist renditions, no one is trying to say “that what they looked like” What you seem to implying (correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is some sort of attempt to hid the fact that they are an artist rendition. Is this any different to an artist rendition of Jesus in some Biblical setting?


Secondly, the actual photos of the fossil reveal relatively poorly preserved specimens. Extensive elaboration is made on the apparent “transitional” features, but the reader is forced to just trust whatever paleontologist interprets, rather than to see for himself.


Why should you not trust the palaeontologist expertise in this matter, who is better qualified?


Suggestions are made that the feathers were used more for insulation than for flight. If the evidence is so convincing, why is the unbiased observer not provided with actual high resolution photos so he can judge for himself?


What web site were you looking at?, perhaps it aimed at an audience that would not appreciate high res, eg a news service.

What did you do to see if you could find his res photos, did you contact the source of the information, or perhaps the organisation that overseas the dig?

Nevertheless, I think it rash of you to make a counter claim based on a photo, transmitted over the internet, then displayed on a monitor of perhaps less than flattering resolution, do you agree?


The suggestion is made that the bird was a poor flyer, but no evidence is provided.
Paleontologists have the annoying habit of attaching far more to a fossil than is actually there.


I would have thought that they were conservative and not prone to exaggeration, perhaps you have some examples of your dealings with this sapect.

My question is, If evolution was so abundant in the past and if the fossil record is replete with examples of transitional forms, why do paleontologists go to such extreme measures to try to force a poorly preserved fossil of very questionable credibility into a “missing link” category?


Do they do that, or is your bias showing. Why cant they be hard working, diligent, and able to read the ground like we read a book, due to extensive research and field experience?

#3 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 20 October 2005 - 09:00 PM

My question is, If evolution was so abundant in the past and if the fossil record is replete with examples of transitional forms, why do paleontologists go to such extreme measures to try to force a poorly preserved fossil of very questionable credibility into a “missing link” category?


Just wanted to point out once again that the fossil record is far from replete with examples of transitional forms. This is because only about 1/10,000 (this is not the exact number, but i think it was in this ball park (trying to remember from a bio class 3 years ago)) dead organisms that are capable of leaving fossils (ie soft bodied things don't fossilize unless under extremely rare conditions) will actually leave fossils. This is why evidence for evolution depends not only on examples from the fossil record but also on things such as historical changes (ie the peppered moth), geography and relationships, ring species, homologies, convergence and parallelism, adaptive radiation, mimicry/warning colours, suboptimal design and vestigial organs. (the last two are more evidence against ID than for ToE).

#4 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:37 AM

Just wanted to point out once again that the fossil record is far from replete with examples of transitional forms.  This is because only about 1/10,000 (this is not the exact number, but i think it was in this ball park (trying to remember from a bio class 3 years ago)) dead organisms that are capable of leaving fossils (ie soft bodied things don't fossilize unless under extremely rare conditions) will actually leave fossils.   This is why evidence for evolution depends not only on examples from the fossil record but also on things such as historical changes (ie the peppered moth), geography and relationships, ring species, homologies, convergence and parallelism, adaptive radiation, mimicry/warning colours, suboptimal design and vestigial organs. (the last two are more evidence against ID than for ToE).

View Post

You correctly noted that only a small number of animals become fossils. However, there are literally millions of fossils covering a supposed time span of several hundred million years. About 20% of all known animals today are represented in the fossil records. Thus, it is ludicrous for evolutionists to appeal to an incomplete fossil record. The gaps are real.
As for peppered moths, that proves nothing about the viability of macroevolution.
Convergence is evidence for ID, not evolution. The arguments of homology, vestigial organs, and suboptimal design reflect only philosophical/religious bias that are irrelevant in the discussion.

#5 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:18 AM

Chance, I appreciate your candor. It’s obviously impossible to be an expert in every field, so you must assume that investigators in different fields are credible in what they do. The problem is, how do you eliminate bias?

I am a physician and have been practicing pathology (laboratory medicine) for more than twenty years. Every diagnosis I make is subject to peer review. Many of my cases eventually end up at Mayo Clinic and are reviewed by specialists. If I misdiagnose a prostate biopsy and someone has unnecessary surgery, I can be sued and lose my license.
With this knowledge constantly looming over my head, I am forced to be as objective as possible. I never make a call unless I can back it up with facts. The natural course of diseases will bear out the truth or fallacy of my diagnoses. When I make a call, I’m confident that skeptics will see things the same way so that if a diagnosis is questioned, I’ll be able to show facts that will support what I said to unbiased critics.

A mathematician is in a somewhat similar situation. Any mathematical theory proposed is critically scrutinized by other mathematicians eager to find a flaw. If a single defect is found, the entire theory is deemed totally worthless. The same is true in physics and chemistry.

If you compare this type of scientist to a paleontologist, for example, there is a world of difference. A paleontologist can be dead wrong, and there is no consequence to anyone, to his tenure, or to his career. In the first place, no one can prove him wrong. Secondly, No direct harm is inflicted on anyone by an erroneous conclusion. Finally, virtually all of his peers are steeped in evolutionary theory, thus allowing exaggeration after exaggeration of the facts to continually feed on itself. What you end up with is an enormous built-in bias that seriously calls into question any conclusions offered because of a lack of any real objectivity. Any “science” that cannot eliminate bias is worthless. I know this through personal experience and observation.

The evidence of bias in evolutionary thinking is so out of control it’s embarrassing. This is especially apparent in the obvious pre-drawn conclusions one constantly sees in the literature, constantly reaffirming the unalterable, axiomatic status of evolution as a biological fact of nature, when the theory has never been proven. When cornered on this point, the only concessions made are on the order of, “Well, okay, maybe it is still technically a theory, but so is the theory of gravity.” The fact is, there are significant numbers of well credentialed biologists, chemists, physicists, and other scientists who regard orthodox Darwinism as totally untenable. To suggest that evolution is an established fact analogous to the theory of gravity is not only dishonest, it is very insulting to those who see the evidence totally differently. There is the constant implication to the public that there is complete agreement among all objective educated scientists that the theory of evolution is an established fact of nature. On the cover of Time magazine about a year ago were the headlines of a feature article, “How Apes Became Human”. The obvious inference is that there is no question that our ancestors were apes… the only question is how they evolved into humans. Such assumptions are a major disgrace to anyone with respect for objective science and in search of real truth.
Another example of bias seen constantly in the evolution literature is that of artistic license. What I’m referring to is the obvious embellishments rendered by artists when illustrating, for example, alleged transitional forms. Rather that present the evidence as it is and let people judge for themselves, subtle attempts are constantly being made to make actual evidence look like more than what it’s really telling. In no way is this more evident than in the reconstruction of supposed pre-human ancestors.
Another manifestation of bias in evolutionary thinking is the zealous attitude of its proponents. While attending university general biology and zoology classes, I noted that any dissenting view on evolutionary theory was regarded with contempt. Instead of being a forum for learning, university teaching of evolution has degenerated into a form of indoctrination.

At one time in my life I had respect for the theory of evolution, and believed much of the evidence. However, my entire thinking has been changed. Much of this, frankly, has been shaped by the absurd, irrational arguments used to defend evolution. Because of the bias so blatantly displayed by defenders of evolution, all evidences put forth a called into question. I have no respect for a scientist who exhibits no humility or willingness entertain a differing point of view. In my years of study, I’ve never heard a single convincing reason to believe that macroevolution by natural selection is either biologically possible or that it actually occurred in the past. Every single piece of evidence, when critically analyzed, has holes in it which are largely ignored or glossed over by evolutionists. Again, the assumption always is, “Evolution is an established fact; therefore… whatever hurdle you perceive is due to your incredulity, or lack of complete understanding of the mechanism involved.” A pattern emerges… evolutionists will not confront negative evidence head-on… rather, they resort of self-evident rationalizations.

At some point the theory of evolution is going to implode, because it is based not on science, but on a naturalistic philosophy of the world that exploits science only to con others into seeing things in a very skewed, narrow-minded way. My experience in talking with evolutionists is that they’re not anxiously in search of truth, but only in verifying their preconceived beliefs. They are emotionally attached to the ToE, and can only see things from one perspective.

The entire theory of evolution is based on high speculative assumptions built on more assumptions. For example, in the case of Protarchaeopteryx, it is stated that the fossils are 120 million years old. There is no proof of this; it is simply stated, and the statement is based on an unproven assumption. If they’re going to be so biased as to state the speculative age as if it were a fact, then how can I believe any conclusion they draw without directly verifying it myself? In my view, the most fallacious of all building blocks of the theory of evolution is the assumption that there is no intelligent design in nature. Totally disregarding the fact that the vast majority of scientists and great thinkers of centuries past (including many of the founders of modern biology) saw intelligent design in nature, evolutionists have artibrarily regarded intelligent design as not plausible in the origin and diversity of life. They’ve done this not based on any empiric evidence. They have absolutely no proof that intelligent design is not operational in nature. They have chosen to dismiss it as a possibility for philosophical reasons. They choose to be politically correct rather than to be objective scientists, arguing that “religion” has no place in science. The result is obvious. They have disregarded a critical factor in the origin of species and are thus engaged in a never-ending vain attempt to explain the complexities of nature in ways that defy all logic, reason, and scientific evidence.

#6 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 October 2005 - 02:14 PM

You correctly noted that only a small number of animals become fossils.  However, there are literally millions of fossils covering a supposed time span of several hundred million years.  About 20% of all known animals today are represented in the fossil records.  Thus, it is ludicrous for evolutionists to appeal to an incomplete fossil record.  The gaps are real.
  As for peppered moths, that proves nothing about the viability of macroevolution.
Convergence is evidence for ID, not evolution. The arguments of homology, vestigial organs, and suboptimal design reflect only philosophical/religious bias that are irrelevant in the discussion.

View Post


When you say 20% of all living species are represented in the fossil record you are right. However, this small number only serves to add to the point that the fossil record is very incomplete. The number of extant species represents only about 1% of species that have lived on the Earth during its history. The species living today have a far higher likelihood of appearing in the fossil record due to the fact that they have had less time to be destroyed. If we can only find 20% of these species in the fossil record (and a leg bone that is traced through DNA to an animal is all it takes for a species to be represented), what is the likelihood that a significant amount of the live that has existed on earth for the last 3.5 billion years is known??

Who told you that convergence is evidence for ID?? Convergence is defined as the evolution of a character to more closely resemble that of an ancestor. You're saying that one pattern of evolution is proof of ID??? Homology has absolutely no philosophical/religious bias. The man who was mostly responsible for recognizing homologies was George Cuvier, a Christian who did not believe evolution happened either. Only Darwin recognized homologies as the logical pattern seen when one common structure evolves into several differently adapted structures. And I agree, suboptimal design is simply a philosophical question but it still provides evidence (albeit philosophical evidence) for the lack of ID.

#7 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:26 PM

[QUOTE]
If we can only find 20% of these species in the fossil record (and a leg bone that is traced through DNA to an animal is all it takes for a species to be represented), what is the likelihood that a significant amount of the live that has existed on earth for the last 3.5 billion years is known??[QUOTE]

The fossil record supposedly spans hundreds of millions of yearsand is represented by millions of fossils. Evolution by natural selection requires innumerabletransitional species. Evolutionists for decades have been zealously looking for them.

[/QUOTE]Who told you that convergence is evidence for ID?? Convergence is defined as the evolution of a character to more closely resemble that of an ancestor. You're saying that one pattern of evolution is proof of ID???[QUOTE]

Homologous resemblance achieved by nonhomologous means is untenable in terms of evolutionary theory. Let me give you one example: How do you explain the homology of a squid eye and a human eye? They are remarkably similar morphologically. Each has a focusing lens, retina, and iris that reacts to light. The overall configuration is nearly identical. How does evolution through natural selection arrive at two nearly exact structures by two completely unrelated pathways? Laws of probably would absolutely forbid such. There are numerous similar examples in nature.

[/QUOTE]Homology has absolutely no philosophical/religious bias. [QUOTE]

The line of reasoning used by evolutionists is, "If there were a creator, why would he endow a dolphin with the precise same structure of its pectoral fin as a human hand? They site homology as powerful evidence of evolution largely because they refuse to believe that a creator would use homologous structures in his blueprints.

#8 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 October 2005 - 08:39 PM

The fossil record supposedly spans hundreds of millions of yearsand is represented by millions of fossils. Evolution by natural selection requires innumerabletransitional species. Evolutionists for decades have been zealously looking for them.


I'm just curious, exactly how complete do you beleive the fossil record is???

Homologous resemblance achieved by nonhomologous means is untenable in terms of evolutionary theory. Let me give you one example: How do you explain the homology of a squid eye and a human eye? They are remarkably similar morphologically. Each has a focusing lens, retina, and iris that reacts to light. The overall configuration is nearly identical. How does evolution through natural selection arrive at two nearly exact structures by two completely unrelated pathways? Laws of probably would absolutely forbid such. There are numerous similar examples in nature.


Homologous structures, by definition do not arise by nonhomologous means. If a structure is homologous to another it is because it is a modification on that structure. If two structures come about by nonhomolous means, they are analogous. The tail of a fish is analogous to the fluke of a whale or dolphin. Both the fish and whale have evolved two similar structures because of identical environmental pressures that are placed upon them. Another example which I have already given is wings for flight.

As far as the squid eye and human eye, they actually aren't that similar structurally. The retina in the human eye is interupted by the optic nerve, but it is not in the squid. The axons (nerve fibers) of the retinal cells in the human eye run over the surface of the retina and converge into the optic nerve, forming the blind spot that occurs in your eyes. In the squid the axons run directly from the base of teh retinal cells into the optic ganglion. Squid eyes are also polarized, meaning they can see objects that are transparent. They are similar because they both evolved to meet a common requirement, needing to see. They are different because of the ecological and morphological differences between humans and squids. Sqid eyes are mounted on the sides of their heads therefore it wouldn't do to have a blind spot in either eye that is not corrected for by the other. The front mounting of the eyes in the humans allows for the blind spot because the other eye can compensate for it. Humans don't need polarized vision as we don't have to go chasing transparent cheeseburgers around McDonalds.

While we're on the topic of eyes, why have so many animals that live underground or in caves etc lost their eyesight? It doesn't make any sense to give an organism eyes, which are costly to produce, which don't even serve any practical purpose.

The line of reasoning used by evolutionists is, "If there were a creator, why would he endow a dolphin with the precise same structure of its pectoral fin as a human hand? They site homology as powerful evidence of evolution largely because they refuse to believe that a creator would use homologous structures in his blueprints.


This is showing your misconceptions again. As scientists, we would rather spend our time and money in an attempt to lend further evidence to a proven theory than to attempt to dispell a myth. This is a key difference between scientists and those that follow ID. The majority of the IDists time is spent in attempting to disprove evolution in an effort to prove their own myth true. However, disproving the ToE, which only a scientist is going to be able to do by the way, does not in any way lend evidence to the myth of ID. For ID to hold, it would need alot of corroborating evidence in support of its claims.

#9 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2005 - 12:30 PM

If you compare this type of scientist to a paleontologist, for example, there is a world of difference.  A paleontologist can be dead wrong, and there is no consequence to anyone, to his tenure, or to his career.  In the first place, no one can prove him wrong.  Secondly, No direct harm is inflicted on anyone by an erroneous conclusion. 

View Post


I wonder why you think this? Have you read papers in paleontology and looked at how scientists in this field propose new theories and attack old ones? As in any academic field, if you make a stupid mistake, it hurts your career, it hurts your students, it affects your chances of getting a grant and it hurts the chances of publication in the future. There are quite a range of dating techniques and if you boldly claimed to have found a feathered dinosaur in rock from an earlier age than previously claimed you will have to provide strong evidence.

For example, if you have any volcanic material in the rock near you and you can get a good Potassium Argon date (greater than 100k years), then I can predict what fossils you will find in the nearby layers. If you test the rock to determine whether it is from saltwater, freshwater, or dry land, then you can make further predictions as to what you will find. This is a testable prediction that anyone can make. Find an animal out of order, and you can get quite a name for yourself.

This is a highly reliable and verifiable field of enquiry. You can generate hypotheses and test those hypotheses. One hypothesis for example is that you will never find modern mammal bones in the same layers with modern dinosaur bones despite the millions of dinosaur and mammal bones scattered across the planet.
http://id-archserve....gon_Dating.html

Here is an example of one of the debates going on with dates. The standard view of scientists studying human migration argues that humans first made it to the Americas in the region between 11,000 years and 20,000 years ago. However, footprints recently found outside of Mexico City have been dated to aroung the 35,000 to 40,000 year range. This will upset quite a number of current theories and will therefore require very convincing evidence. It will take several years of debate - and possible more supporting evidence before this will be accepted by the academic community.

http://www.mexicanfo...ch/datefoot.htm
"We have materials that have been dated below the footprint layer, the footprint layer itself and on top of the footprint layer. Everything is making sense," said Dr Gonzalez.

The researchers used radiocarbon dating on shells and animal bones in the sequences and dated mammoth teeth by a technique called electron spin resonance. The sediments themselves were dated by optically stimulated luminescence.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/4650307.stm

I have no respect for a scientist who exhibits no humility or willingness entertain a differing point of view.

View Post

Suppose you were told the same thing by someone the believed in a flat earth. Or better yet, suppose someone told you, as a physician, that they caught the the flu from watching television. Are you willing to entertain a differing point of view? How much evidence does a scientist have to have before they are allowed to say that I don't think you have a valid point of view? Should a physician seriously consider the flu television hypthesis based on the claim of the patient? Most scientists accepted the old earth by the end of the 19th century (proposed by mostly Christian geologists). There are now thousands upon thousands of different lines of evidence pointing to an old earth.

For example, in the case of Protarchaeopteryx, it is stated that the fossils are 120 million years old.  There is no proof of this; it is simply stated, and the statement is based on an unproven assumption.

View Post


There is a lot of debate regarding the dating of first feathered dinosaurs. As more and more feathered dinosaurs species are found (and the numbers are growing every week), paleontologists are debating what the earliest form was and whether it evolved more than once. Dating issues are discussed at length in many of these papers. Do a search on Google scholar on archaeopteryx and read a few of the papers. Everyone has access to most of the information. You can even get decent pictures - although a thorough analysis needs direct access to the fossil, a microscope, and some knowledge of what feathers look like when fossilized.
http://cas.bellarmin...d_dinosaurs.htm

#10 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 22 October 2005 - 04:20 PM

As far as the squid eye and human eye, they actually aren't that similar structurally.

They're not identical, but the similarities are striking! You still haven't explained how it's possible for two very similar structures could have evolved independent of one another. Even Darwin was VERY perplexed by the camera eye in terms of natural selection. Supposedly it evolved TWICE. Try to explain that using probability concepts.

While we're on the topic of eyes, why have so many animals that live underground or in caves etc lost their eyesight? It doesn't make any sense to give an organism eyes, which are costly to produce, which don't even serve any practical purpose.

Another philosophical/religious argument irrelevant to the discussion.

As scientists, we would rather spend our time and money in an attempt to lend further evidence to a proven theory than to attempt to dispell a myth.

Are you implying that marcoevolution is proven? I think you might be a little premature, considering...
1. macroevolution has never been observed.
2. macroevolution has never been proven to be biologically possible.
3. total lack of empiric evidence that evolution occured in the past.

#11 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 22 October 2005 - 06:04 PM

They're not identical, but the similarities are striking! You still haven't explained how it's possible for two very similar structures could have evolved independent of one another. Even Darwin was VERY perplexed by the camera eye in terms of natural selection. Supposedly it evolved TWICE. Try to explain that using probability concepts.


It is beleived that they are similar due to the fact that they have been derived of the same structure in the ancestors. This structure is simply the ocelli which are found in many of the primitive vertebrates. An example is the row of ocelli that run along the spinal chord of the amphioxus. This organism is among the most primitive of chordates and does not have any eyes.

ratrat>While we're on the topic of eyes, why have so many animals that live underground or in caves etc lost their eyesight? It doesn't make any sense to give an organism eyes, which are costly to produce, which don't even serve any practical purpose.

Another philosophical/religious argument irrelevant to the discussion.


Any evidence that can be given to refute ID is going to be philosophical/religious because ID is in itself philosophical/religious.

Are you implying that marcoevolution is proven? I think you might be a little premature, considering...
1. macroevolution has never been observed.
2. macroevolution has never been proven to be biologically possible.
3. total lack of empiric evidence that evolution occured in the past.


The fact that macroevolution has earned the status of a scientific theory means that while it is not proven, it is the most efficient way of explaining observations and is accepted by science.

Here's some empirical evidence of evolution. Two species of Tragopogon plants have evolved within the last 50-60 years. This occured when the diploid species (has one pair of each chromosome) failed to undergo proper meiosis and instead of producing another diploid plant, produced a tetraploid (2 pairs of each chromosome). In plants, offspring with an even number of chromosomes (diploid, tetraploid etc.) are usually viable while those that have odd numbers of chromosomes are not. This means that this plant would not be able to mate with diploid members of its species (this would produce triploid offspring, which are inviable). However, it is able to self pollinate itself, thereby producing more tetraploids. The inability to form viable offspring with its diploid ancestors makes the tetraploid variety its own species. VOILA, we have Macroevolution. And observed within the last 50-60 years.

#12 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2005 - 12:15 PM

Here's some empirical evidence of evolution.  Two species of Tragopogon plants have evolved within the last 50-60 years.  This occured when the diploid species (has one pair of each chromosome) failed to undergo proper meiosis and instead of producing another diploid plant, produced a tetraploid (2 pairs of each chromosome).  In plants, offspring with an even number of chromosomes (diploid, tetraploid etc.) are usually viable while those that have odd numbers of chromosomes are not.  This means that this plant would not be able to mate with diploid members of its species (this would produce triploid offspring, which are inviable).  However, it is able to self pollinate itself, thereby producing more tetraploids.  The inability to form viable offspring with its diploid ancestors makes the tetraploid variety its own species.  VOILA, we have Macroevolution.  And observed within the last 50-60 years.


This is not an example of macroevolution, and suggesting so, is again, a gross equivocation in terms of trying to use microevolution as evidence of macroevoution. You cannot get from a microbe to a man with this type of evolution. You just went from one plant to another plant.

Furthermore; this type of evolution fits well within a creationist interpreation of the variety of living organisms in a very short time frame.

Finally,

I would like to make sure you understand what the Forum rules are regarding this type of equivocation:

Please note that I consider anyone who claims that microevolution or allopatric speciation is proof that evolution occurs is in violation of the forum rules (equivocation), and will likely be banned. The CvE forum is a place to debate whether or not "...all life originated from a common ancestor". The word "all" means we are here to debate the validity of molecules-to-man evolution, not micro-evolution, or the now muddled and watered-down definition of macro-evolution. Equivocation on this is a major pet-peeve of mine, and I will not hesitate to given anyone who equivocates like this the boot. It is the most prevalant symptom of evo-babble I have ever come across. In my mind it is willful intellectual dishonesty, no different than gimmicks lawyers use when defending a person they know is guilty.

Fred


Forum Rules

Terry

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2005 - 06:52 PM

Chance, I appreciate your candor. It’s obviously impossible to be an expert in every field, so you must assume that investigators in different fields are credible in what they do. The problem is, how do you eliminate bias?


Peer review, and an open book policy to your research IMO is essential. But more importantly, when looking a fiel that is not in your area of experteese, how can you tell if bias has been minimised or not?

I am a physician <snip> reviewed by specialists. <snip> if a diagnosis is questioned, I’ll be able to show facts that will support what I said to unbiased critics.


Sounds like good science in practice too me.

If you compare this type of scientist to a paleontologist, for example, there is a world of difference. A paleontologist can be dead wrong, and there is no consequence to anyone, to his tenure, or to his career. In the first place, no one can prove him wrong.


The difference being regarding what ultimate claim is being made, a palaeontologist can discover and describe a find (the bulk of the work), he then might make analysis to classify the find using comparative anatomy. This of course is based on the status quo of all finds. A new find can indeed overturn a old ideas on the specific evolutionary path (but I seriously doubt the big picture in under any threat), son one can most certainly be proven wrong.




Secondly, No direct harm is inflicted on anyone by an erroneous conclusion.


Not sure why this is a problem, I would have thought it applicable to any study of history, yes?


Finally, virtually all of his peers are steeped in evolutionary theory, thus allowing exaggeration after exaggeration of the facts to continually feed on itself. What you end up with is an enormous built-in bias that seriously calls into question any conclusions offered because of a lack of any real objectivity. Any “science” that cannot eliminate bias is worthless. I know this through personal experience and observation.


By making this claim you are exposing your own bias in assuming scientist do not practice enough rigor in their profession. The ToE was not imagined overnight it needed, got and passed every test and prediction thrown at it over a century ago, it is still the best theory that explains the evidence.


The evidence of bias in evolutionary thinking is so out of control it’s embarrassing. This is especially apparent in the obvious pre-drawn conclusions one constantly sees in the literature, constantly reaffirming the unalterable, axiomatic status of evolution as a biological fact of nature, when the theory has never been proven. When cornered on this point, the only concessions made are on the order of, “Well, okay, maybe it is still technically a theory, but so is the theory of gravity.”


re gravity – OK good example, A question for you, “How does gravity work”?

#14 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 23 October 2005 - 10:09 PM

This is not an example of macroevolution, and suggesting so, is again, a gross equivocation in terms of trying to use microevolution as evidence of macroevoution.  You cannot get from a microbe to a man with this type of evolution.  You just went from one plant to another plant.

Furthermore; this type of evolution fits well within a creationist interpreation of the variety of living organisms in a very short time frame.

Finally,

I would like to make sure you understand what the Forum rules are regarding this type of equivocation:
Forum Rules

Terry

View Post


I've read that file and wouldn't have posted this if I didn't believe this was macroevolution. Microevolution is a process through which a species changes genotypically or phenotypically. Macroevolution is a process which results in a new species. I wasn't attempting to use the whole extrapolating microevolution into macroevolution here. This process has clearly brought about a new species, and to me and most of scientists (at least the ones that wrote my evolution textbook) that is macroevolution.

If you do not agree with these definitions, please tell me what you believe they are just to facilitate debate and wasting each others time.

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:02 AM

If you do not agree with these definitions, please tell me what you believe they are just to facilitate debate and wasting each others time.


I think its already been made clear. The debate is about goo-to-you evolution, not about speciation.

Creationists accept speciation as part of the model to explain what we see, and observe in nature, so using speciation cannot be emperical proof of evolution in the goo-to-you sense.

Haggling over these types of semantics is a waste of time.

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users