Are there transitional fossils?

[HenryM]

Disagreeing with you does not mean my understanding of the topic is modest.

That is (a) irrelevant to the topic at hand and (b) wrong. (The actual number is 27.9 quintillion.)

I didn't say anything about a straight line. A straight line in what space? What is true is that two isolated populations in a single species will diverge from each other as they change. And I see no reason to think there should be a massive number of failed species. Every mutation that becomes common in a population will be either beneficial or neutral, so why should a bunch of individual beneficial changes produce a failed species? (In fact, I can't figure out how there could be that many attempted species, since there is a limit to how many distinct populations something humans can maintain.)

No, that's just not it, sorry. But nothing to say to you. By the way, calculation of number of melodies varies depending on input parameters for rhythm. But you managed to shorten it from 80 to 30 quintillion...

 

[sfs]

No, that's just not it, sorry. But nothing to say to you.

I thought you were supposed to be the knowledgable one here. Are you unable to support your claims?

 

[sfs]

5% difference, by the way, is 25 million pieces of information. And, system would have to know which 5% of the half a billion pieces to change, and then, how precisely to change them. But system can't know it, since it's non-conscious, so the system would have to go about changing everything in various directions, until success sticks.

The system would have to know these things if it were trying to become human. But that's not a description of the biological process of evolution. In evolution, species just change, with no particular target in view. Any change that works will stick, and there are lots and lots of ways of being a successful organism.

 

[Larniavc]

I can't provide you with data on mutating rates that was computed with a scientific, provable, formula based on a law, like law of gravity, for example, which provides scientific, provable, formula for calculation.

Then I don't see how you can conclude that we should see more extint homo species than we actually see.

Your example while an interesting analogy is not representative of ToE.

 

[HenryM]

Then I don't see how you can conclude that we should see more extint homo species than we actually see.

Your example while an interesting analogy is not representative of ToE.

Right back at you. I don't see how you can conclude that we should see modest amount of extinct failed spieces.

Your position, while interesting story, is not representative of how reality works.

 

[HenryM]

...there are lots and lots of ways of being a successful organism.

There are massively more ways to be a failure. That's reality. And you either don't want to see implications of it or just don't care to see it. But if you believe everything came from nothing by explosion (from nothing?), with precise set of laws of physics (from nothing?), with chemical materials (from nothing?) and then through randomness and chance created highly sophisticated structures and qualities (something we can never observe in real life), including ones no one can explain (like consciousness), of course you will say anything that does not even resemble reality.

 

[sfs]

There are massively more ways to be a failure. That's reality.

Sure. And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, those ways are explored by mutation and natural selection acting on individual members of the species. I told you before: there have been tens of billions of failed mutational experiments in humans just in the last ten or twenty thousand years, and no new species produced. You didn't respond to that point at all. Did you not understand it?

And you either don't want to see implications of it or just don't care to see it.

Or else I understand the subject better than you do, and you're simply wrong. Consider that radical possibility.

But if you believe everything came from nothing by explosion (from nothing?),

Nothing to do with evolution.

with precise set of laws of physics (from nothing?),

Nothing to do with evolution.

with chemical materials (from nothing?)

Nothing to do with evolution (and you've already covered the existence of materials with the Big Bang and the laws of physics).

Instead of going off on tangents, could you please respond to the points I've made? I've told you why the real science of genetics refutes your claims about evolution. Do you care?

 

[USincognito]

globin is about 150 aa long. how many aa do you think that we need for a minimal globin function?

Posting random stuff you Googled is not the same as addressing my post. Would you care to address the content of the four different papers showing that genome duplication in basal agnathans generated the variety of globins found in modern vertebrates, or are you just going to post nonsense?

 

[USincognito]

You are misdirecting or there's misunderstaning.

There's definitely some misunderstanding on this forum. Who is guilty of it might not be clear to some participants.

To get from monkey/primate to human,{snip}

I'm just going to mention, because a large part of your argument appears to be the suggestion that there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between humans and our fellow haplorrhines (monkeys) and our fellow primtes. There really isn't. Just a few modifications here and there to body plan and some organs.

 

[USincognito]

"Uh, what" all day, your understanding of the topic is modest.

Bahahahahahah! Oh my word, the newbies around here kill me sometimes.

 

[USincognito]

I can't provide you with data on mutating rates that was computed with a scientific, provable, formula based on a law, like law of gravity, for example, which provides scientific, provable, formula for calculation.

Thinks science proves things? Check!
Thinks laws are more than descriptions of observations? Check!
Conflates mutation rates (which are variable) with a physical property of the universe (which isn't)? Check!

 

[The Stamp]

I have not read every post so this could have been said before, if every individual animal that ever lived was fossilise then every fossil would be a transitional fossil even though not once did anything give birth to anything that was not of the same species as the parents, if you don't understand that then you don't understand evolution, changes take time and happens to populations not individuals.

 

[Larniavc]

Right back at you. I don't see how you can conclude that we should see modest amount of extinct failed spieces.

Your position, while interesting story, is not representative of how reality works.

The fact remains that there are only modest set of extinct homo species.

You seem to expect there to be many more but reality shows that there are not.

I'm still not clear why you expect there to be so many.

You seem to be inventing a problem so that it can be solved with conscious direction.

We do not see a great many extinct homo species and we have no reason to expect to.

Your musical analogy is hardly proof that there should be many more as it has been explained that the majority of mutations have no effect on fitness.

There is no problem here that needs to be solved with the addition of a guiding entity: that would not be parsimonious.

 

[HenryM]

You seem to expect there to be many more but reality shows that there are not...

I don't expect to be many, because I know there can't be, since there is no marco evolution. Reality shows exactly what it should. I would expect to be many if story of macro evolution would be true.

 

[HenryM]

There have been tens of billions of failed mutational experiments in humans just in the last ten or twenty thousand years, and no new species produced...

What mutational experiments are you talking about? The ones that produce new spieces? Or the ones that only change variations within a spieces, a micro evolution type of mutations? I know evolutionists see them as same type of mutations on different time scales, but the problem is first one doesn't exist.

If macro evolution exist, there has to be much more failed spieces that successful ones, an order of magnitude much more, just like there are more failed mutational experiments within micro evolution than successful ones. It's the progression of failures extended to spieces.

You maybe take for granted a would be mess of a situation of transforming monkey/primate to human by a non-conscious system, which has to correctly work with a pool of half a billion DNA content (to find which one to change, and precisely how to change it, all while doing it randomly). Massive amount of failed spieces would have to exist and get extinct before human could become from monkey/primate in that way.

 

[Larniavc]

I don't expect to be many, because I know there can't be, since there is no marco evolution. Reality shows exactly what it should. I would expect to be many if story of macro evolution would be true.

Then I think it would be useful for us to examine why you believe ToE would demand many failed homo species when no biologist thinks there should be.

ToE makes no demand that there should be many failed homo species: where did you learn it did?

 

[Larniavc]

If macro evolution exist, there has to be much more failed spieces that successful ones,

Not so.

Speciation can only take place with successful mutations.

 

[HenryM]

Speciation can only take place with successful mutations.

Yes, with mutations that would be successful enough to create a spieces, not to create a fully successful spieces. It is one thing to get foot in the door of a game, and another to shoot 40 points.

Massive amount of spieces that got good enough to exist would end as clear failure.

 

[xianghua]

A fossil might not be formal "proof" but it is strong evidence. Can you give a logical reason why we would find fossils like these in ancient layers if not for evolution?

yes. first, a lots of the suppose missing links arent even in the correct age. see this fig combine with the fossil record (the blue line):

The origin of birds

about 50% of those groups arent in the correct order of their suppose evolution.

we have found also this problematic fossil:

Protoavis - Wikipedia

and the last thing is that even if they was in the correct order, we cant say that they evolved. because we can say the same for those cars:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[sfs]

What mutational experiments are you talking about? The ones that produce new spieces? Or the ones that only change variations within a spieces, a micro evolution type of mutations? I know evolutionists see them as same type of mutations on different time scales, but the problem is first one doesn't exist.

And your reason for saying the first one doesn't exist is . . .? We can look at the genetic differences between species -- humans and chimpanzees, for example -- and see what they look like. Guess what? They look exactly like the differences between members of the same species, and exactly like the differences caused by new mutations. There are just more of them. Now you claim that the interspecies differences can't be the result of lots of mutations. Why?

If macro evolution exist, there has to be much more failed spieces that successful ones, an order of magnitude much more, just like there are more failed mutational experiments within micro evolution than successful ones. It's the progression of failures extended to spieces.

Yeah, we understand that you believe this, since you keep saying it. What we don't understand is why you think it's true. Biologists aren't aware of any reason there should be lots of failed species. What do you know that they don't?

You maybe take for granted a would be mess of a situation of transforming monkey/primate to human by a non-conscious system, which has to correctly work with a pool of half a billion DNA content (to find which one to change, and precisely how to change it, all while doing it randomly).

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or how it constitutes an argument against evolution.