Another puzzler, what is the difference between Models of Evolution and Evolution itself? This makes no sense.
Dizredux
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Another puzzler, what is the difference between Models of Evolution and Evolution itself? This makes no sense.Because the central creation story of Evolution is not open to change with evidence. Models of Evolution will change, but never Evolution itself.
This set of statements has all the hallmarks of unsupported rhetoric. So, I am going to request evidence be provided by you for the following:It all depends on how robust that theory is and how well insulated it is from potential falsification via such ad-hoc adjustments.
Within ToE, "Evolution" is actually treated as a vague, mysterious creative power. The data can be entirely contradictory and still be absorbed as 'something evolution did'.
This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.
The prediction is not that the pattern we have already observed will exist. The prediction is that future fossils found will fall into the evolutionary pattern of being a transitional between groups. If major taxa fell out of that pattern to the point that transitions could not be identified, the theory would be in crisis. You have examples of such?There's nothing wrong with building a hypothesis around the observation. It's when you falsely claim that your theory predicts the observation that we run into trouble.
I'm sure you know that the general pattern of fossils is constantly used as if it is one of the great tests of ToE. I can find any pro-Evolution presentation and you will hear them saying something like "we don't find mammals below this rock layer" ... "we don't find terrestrial organisms below this rock layer" etc. etc. "therefore Evolution!"
This is a gigantic bluff. Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.
The current fossil record does does fit the evolutionary paradigm.Then you are in agreement. Major rearrangements of fossil patterns could have been accommodated by ToE. But do you realize how many evolutionists will argue ignorantly that the general fossil order is a "perfect fit" to ToE? "not a single fossil out of place", yadda yadda.
Then you believe the fossils we have found so far is a complete record of organisms that have ever existed in the past? If not, then the record is incomplete.Epic Fail. Today, based on the fossil record, many complex body-plans "poof" into existence. This is blamed on a lack of fossilization of course.
With less evidence, any argument can be made. However, more evidence exists for reptile-mammal transition than amphibian-mammal transition.And finding candidate "precursors" is a highly subjective and ambiguous practice. Evolutionists once argued that mammals were most closely related to amphibians based on several morphological similarities. This means that any similarities between animal groups can be potentially argued as evidence of ancestry. Highly ambiguous, highly subjective.
Please take the current set of transitionals from reptile to mammal and make your case that the morphological changes are independent convergences.Your "reptile-mammal tree" could have been interpreted as a series of independent morphological convergences if necessary to better harmonize ToE. That shows just how accommodating the theory is to contradictions.
Fossils solve mystery of bat evolution | Science | theguardian.comI already did. One is the "evolution" of Bats. It isn't my argument, evolutionists themselves admit there is virtually no fossil evidence of their "precursors".
Then you feel it is acceptable for you to toss in accusations without evidence and we are required to gather evidence to refute those unsupported claims.The Cambrian explosion is another obvious enigma where many body plans "poof" into existence. Again, this is coming from evolutionists so I'm not going to waste my time going down off-topic rabbit trails. If you seriously doubt such enigmas exist, then you need to study your own theory more.
I said if we have bat fossils than there's no reason not to expect a few intermediates here and there.
The environmental conditions for fossilization probably have much more to do with the chances of fossilization than the size of the animal.
But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.
I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do. They turn natural selection into a superstitious magical force that can potentially build anything - just add time.
Sure there is. Some details are still controversial, but for the most part it consistent between morphology/ chemistry and genetics. There is also the issue of horizontal gene transfer in lower organisms especially. These mechanisms are not theoretical, they are observable, btw.Well a mammal genome will probably be similar to another mammal genome with a similar phenotype, insect similar to insect, etc.
There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying. I've already listed a few reasons why in the OP.
How so? The fact is that no pesticide or antibiotic has ever eliminated a target organism. Other factors must be utilized, such as mass vaccination, and elimination of other host species to serve as reservoirs, etc. We succeeded with smallpox, only because it requires a human host. Polio is also doable, but still hangs on in Africa because of inefficient application of the mass vaccination programs required.So extinction falsifies Evolution?
Either it is incomplete (or nearly so) or it is not. You have admitted it is incomplete. Now you are vacillating.Of course it is incomplete, but how incomplete? The re-occurring pattern of discovery shows that we mostly keep finding the same general body plans over and over again. This is a strong indicator that the fossil record is mostly complete in terms of representatives of major types of life.
But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.
I used jaws as an example, only. There are many other features that evolved in this transition and are documented in the fossil record. Others are not documented because they require soft tissue; in some cases these can be inferred from the fossils.Okay it sounds like you do not understand that your "well-recorded transition" is only a subjective interpretation.
For one thing, this "transition" is an example of an "evolving body part". It focuses on the jaw/ear area and ignores otherwise diverse body plans.
Various features of a transition do not always change at the same time. This is not a problem.However, as I was saying before, this "transition" could also be interpreted as an independent convergence of different lineages towards certain mammalian traits. This would be invoked if, say, mammal groups tended to appear in lower rocks than that jaw "transition".
We are dealing with many different populations in many different environments and locations over a long time period. Therefore, such a scenario is not impossible.(Interestingly, some paleontologists are even now saying that certain stages of this jawbone transition happened convergently multiple times.)
Is the trait one that tends not to fossilize?And actually, it is meaningless to ToE that this 'evolving body-part' "transition" is even in a stratigraphic order. If it was out of order, you could just say that it is evidence that a more primitive trait happened to fossilize before a more derived trait. Care to comment?
It has to do with being able to breathe while eating. If that provides an advantage, it will be selected for.This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.
Why didn't the bats created by your god (or their descendants) fossilize?Sorry but things far more delicate than bats have left plenty of fossil evidence. And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.
How about a god poofing them into existence?You may as well just appeal to pure chance.
Well a mammal genome will probably be similar to another mammal genome with a similar phenotype, insect similar to insect, etc
There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying. I've already listed a few reasons why in the OP.
This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone...
And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.
I said if we have bat fossils than there's no reason not to expect a few intermediates here and there.
The environmental conditions for fossilization probably have much more to do with the chances of fossilization than the size of the animal. Favorable environmental factors could easily offset any bias from organism structure. Again, you may as well just appeal to chance.
How about icthyosaurs? You'll just say the intermediates didn't happen to fossilize.
That's not entirely accurate, I will highlight a few examples. Consider when the ToE was conceptualized in the mid 19th century, prior to a modern understanding of physics, radioisotopes decay rates and the now known age of the earth.
At the time the age of the earth was understood to be maybe in the millions of years, and as discoveries in physics & how to date material become understood the age could have been only that or younger. With such an age and as the knowledge of the rate of speed of evolution as observed the theory could have been basically falsified right there or certainly would have involved some massive overhauls.
Consider the recent discoveries in the mapping of the human genome and other genomes of other organisms. At the time it was found that human's have 2 pairs of 24 chromosomes and recent analysis for the Chimpanzee revealed they have 2 pairs of 23 chromosomes (the same is true for Gorillas, Orangutans, and Bonobos). The existing theory/model on evolution and common ancestry is that we share relatively close common ancestry with members in the Great Apes family.
So how could this be if they have one less pair of chromosomes?
Possibly, but not necessarily, it would entirely be dependent on what was found & where geologically. What I guess is curious if you're a creationist & compelling for the model overall is that all the existing patterns, both in phylogenetic trees created via genetics and patterns in creation of clades are basically identical and are perfectly in line with common ancestry
For instance, if we did find mammals in the Cambrian strata how could the existing model explain this? It would require a full re-write of the ancestry of all of the tetrapoda ancestry. All the earlier ancestors of amphibians, reptiles would need to be explained in this new model somehow & it would be a major challenge.
Then he followed that up with
Here they are - Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolutionary paleontologists themselves admit that the icthyosaur body plan pretty much just appears with no viable precursor candidates.
Another puzzler, what is the difference between Models of Evolution and Evolution itself? This makes no sense.
Dizredux
Conclusion
Evolution can more accurately be described as a simulation of a scientific theory. It's how a scientific theory would look in a parallel world where the essential likelihood of Evolution had somehow been scientifically established. But in reality, this "likelihood" was never established. It was, and is, a mystical Creation story that is believed and assumed.
Evolution can also be described as a metaphysical research program. By that I mean it is a way of studying things after first assuming that the nature of reality is an evolutionary one. One does not test or even question the fundamental metaphysical belief, but proceeds as if such a thing is a given, and interprets all data within the confines of that belief.
This is why it is possible for there to be a seemingly "scientific consensus" about Evolution while simultaneously failing as a robust scientific theory. The real consensus is that there is a tacit agreement that nature will be interpreted through an evolutionary worldview. It is purely metaphysical. It is agreed upon that the nature of reality is an evolutionary one. Put simply, Evolution is a philosophical consensus held by many holding 'scientific' roles, and not a consensus born out by the evidence itself.
To the average person it would be difficult to distinguish a philosophical consensus of scientists from a true consensus of scientific evidence. That confusion has provided the bedrock by which evolutionists are able to so effectively advance their "theory".
There are no observed "rates of evolution"...
Radiometric dates that were unfavorable to Evolution could simply be assumed to be suffering from some source of contamination. (That's how discordant radiometric dates are treated today, by the way.)
If it was more of an apparent problem for Evolution, then radioactivity in general would never have begun to be advertised as a reliable dating method to begin with
I think you meant this the other way around. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimps, etc. 24 pairs
Differences between humans and chimpanzees would be regarded as something natural selection did.
Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees. This is regarded as something natural selection did.
Similar rationalization would be used for a chromosomal discrepancy. Maybe it would make humans and chimps far more divergent than previously thought, though of course they would still be argued to share a recent common ancestor.
They are "in line", because phylogenetics is accommodating enough to make room for many different kinds of data. I explained this in the OP concerning homology and convergence
Yes, now it would. (providing the fossils aren't shelved as an unknown anomaly)
They have what?
Orphan genes.
Orphan gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? Your true colors are starting to show...
Oh, look, someone knows how to use Google and to insult somebody else that doesn't recognize a term...
I'm not the supposed biologist that doesn't recognize biology terms.
(emphasis mine)Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.
.
I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.
And you are confused about the nature of those predictions.
Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself. NOT Evolution theory.
Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs
Of course evolutionists can now "predict" that certain patterns will hold, but this is not a prediction of ToE.
If the patterns were different, then evolutionists would be "predicting" the continuation of the different ones.
Lifepsyop: In recent centuries, if a fossil pattern had emerged where most mammals appear simultaneously or even before many reptilian/dinosaurian orders, then evolutionists could just have easily built their theory around this pattern.
Um, are you even aware that Phylogenetics includes comparing morphological traits? It doesn't sound like it.
Can I please hear a rebuttal from someone who knows what they're talking about and not these pseudo-experts?
Well... no.
No, DogmaHunter... just no... all sorts of considerations including subjective weighting of character traits goes into phylogenetic studies, and different studies done by different authors are frequently at odds with each other, because they interpret character traits differently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?