Evolution's Brick Wall

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

Okay ... sorry about that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually the tiktaalik found to be in the wrong order:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

so again we see something that evolution never predicted.

Evolution predicts the fish/tetrapod transition happened in the devonian.
How does this article contradict that?
The "radical reassessment of timing" it talks about, only covers a few million years and doesn't place the evolution of tetrapods in other geological periods, like the cambrian or whatever - which actually would be a problem.

So, once again, you manage to take a paper you don't understand and pretend it supports your backwards views while it really doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if a human will evolve from a bacteria it will still be a bacteria according to this criteria.

Yes, you successfully repeated what he just said.
Too bad you don't manage to repeat the part where he said that humans didn't evolve from bacteria.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, well, well... Thank you xianghua, it looks as though we were right in ignoring these guy's TicTac comments after all. Now we know it was nonsense.

The only nonsense here, is @xianghua's misrepresentation of the facts.

Evolution predicts the fish/tetrapod transtion happened in the devonian.
Nothing in that paper points to anything but that transition happening in the devonian. What it actually talks about, is it happening a few million years earlier then previously believed. Which still places it in the mid devonian onwards.

So the prediction still stands.

And nothing about this changes the fact that the tiktaalik find was predicted. It was found in the correct devonian rock and it had the correct hybrid fish/tetrapod features.


It's also extremely interesting here, that you happily side and rate "winner" with a guy's post who's notoriously ill-informed about the actual science, and who is probably one of the biggest misrepresentors of evolution on this forum, just because he happens to say something that you feel supports your views....

While at the same time, you are actually on this forum arguing with actual professional paleontologists and geneticists, because they don't happen to be saying the things you want to hear.

You should reflect on that for a moment.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

Hi Mark,

I was just using some of that fancy "logic" back at him.

I had asked you earlier in this thread about this - maybe you missed it (or maybe I missed your reply):

Hi Mark - hoping you can address this:

Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

I have come across these sorts of debates for literally decades. And without fail, regardless of the amount of apparent scientific reasons the creationists present, it ultimately comes down to their simple refusal to accept it - they just don't believe it. But that is not an argument.

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen is the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

For example - there is a mutant allele for the myostatin gene that produces, naturally, giant muscles:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jp7ZiewdHdY/TdogQbnTONI/AAAAAAAAABw/lOiFnKoV3qs/s1600/belgianblue.jpg

While I am not claiming this to be the case, why do you pre-reject something like this (I am assuming you would) in the case of human brain expansion?

That tremendous skeletal muscle expansion is the result of a single mutation. There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think).

 

[inquiring mind]

The only nonsense here, is @xianghua's misrepresentation of the facts.

Evolution predicts the fish/tetrapod transtion happened in the devonian.
Nothing in that paper points to anything but that transition happening in the devonian. What it actually talks about, is it happening a few million years earlier then previously believed. Which still places it in the mid devonian onwards.

So the prediction still stands.

And nothing about this changes the fact that the tiktaalik find was predicted. It was found in the correct devonian rock and it had the correct hybrid fish/tetrapod features.


It's also extremely interesting here, that you happily side and rate "winner" with a guy's post who's notoriously ill-informed about the actual science, and who is probably one of the biggest misrepresentors of evolution on this forum, just because he happens to say something that you feel supports your views....

While at the same time, you are actually on this forum arguing with actual professional paleontologists and geneticists, because they don't happen to be saying the things you want to hear.

You should reflect on that for a moment.

“This is consonant with the biostratigraphy but nevertheless suggests an earlier origin for tetrapods than indicated by the body fossil data. Our discovery of diagnostic and securely dated tetrapod tracks from the marine Eifelian (early Middle Devonian) of Poland shows that the current consensus based on body fossils is substantially mistaken in both the timescale and, probably, the environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition.” http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/trackways.pdf


Even this team still clings to an unsubstantiated belief in macro evolution, so their tetrapod track find is pretty reliable I suppose. The point is there was no ‘matter of fact’ macro evolution proof regarding the TicTac find we discussed for a week. Like I said then, TicTac is most likely a strange creature with tetrapod tracks ‘now predating it’ by several million years. As it appears with this find, the only proof is that there was ‘no exactness’ to a predicted transition and TicTac find. We listened to this argument for a week... that brick wall can be very hard.

 

[DogmaHunter]

“This is consonant with the biostratigraphy but nevertheless suggests an earlier origin for tetrapods than indicated by the body fossil data. Our discovery of diagnostic and securely dated tetrapod tracks from the marine Eifelian (early Middle Devonian) of Poland shows that the current consensus based on body fossils is substantially mistaken in both the timescale and, probably, the environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition.” http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/trackways.pdf

Ow boy.

It says the dated tracks are from the early middle Devonian.
This is the right period. It is saying that it might have happened earlier on in that period then previously believed (based on the fossil record, which is incomplete by definition, considering how rare fossilisation is).

...and that's even just going by the quote you posted... I didn't read the article.

Nevertheless, Tiktaalik, like many other fossils, were still found by prediction.

The fish/tetrapod hybrids, be it those tracks or Tiktaalik, show up in the correct period.

Even this team still clings to an unsubstantiated belief in macro evolution, so their tetrapod track find is pretty reliable I suppose.

How is it unsubstantiated, knowing they literally find fish/tetrapod transitionals by prediction?

The point is there was no ‘matter of fact’ macro evolution proof regarding the TicTac find we discussed for a week.

Except it was found by prediction of both the locality as well as feature set.
A prediction, based on the very idea you are insisting is incorrect. How do you make succesfull predictions this detailed, based on ideas that are completely false?

Like I said then, TicTac is most likely a strange creature with tetrapod tracks ‘now predating it’ by several million years.

So when paleontologists, based on evolution theory, predicted that they should go to some remote spot in Canada to find a specific type of rock in what used to be a specific type of environment millions of years ago, start digging to a certain depth and find there "some type of strange" and, till then, completely unknown creature with exactly those anatomical features and stuff........ they just happened to luck out and find in that specific spot, of all the places in the world, exactly such a weird creature???

That sounds reasonable to you?!?

As it appears with this find, the only proof is that there was ‘no exactness’ to a predicted transition and TicTac find. We listened to this argument for a week... that brick wall can be very hard.

Brick wall? Reinforced concrete with machine guns on top of it, sounds more like it.
Your psychological defenses are the equivalent of a trillion dollar army.


Just think about what you are proposing by saying that "it's just a weird creature" and that the paleontologists who predicted to find such a weird creature in that exact location, just were ... "lucky".

Come on, man.
btw: the tracks in poland have actually been addressed by KomatiiteBIF in that discussion. I even think he brought them up himself. It seems you've already forgotten.

Creationists like to say that there are no transitionals.
Then you show them a transitional (literally a fish with tetrapod features), which was even found by prediction of all things.... the response? "lucky, it's just a weird creature"


Uhu.


I repeat:

 

[inquiring mind]

Ow boy.

It says the dated tracks are from the early middle Devonian.
This is the right period. It is saying that it might have happened earlier on in that period then previously believed (based on the fossil record, which is incomplete by definition, considering how rare fossilisation is).

...and that's even just going by the quote you posted... I didn't read the article.

Nevertheless, Tiktaalik, like many other fossils, were still found by prediction.

The fish/tetrapod hybrids, be it those tracks or Tiktaalik, show up in the correct period.



How is it unsubstantiated, knowing they literally find fish/tetrapod transitionals by prediction?



Except it was found by prediction of both the locality as well as feature set.
A prediction, based on the very idea you are insisting is incorrect. How do you make succesfull predictions this detailed, based on ideas that are completely false?



So when paleontologists, based on evolution theory, predicted that they should go to some remote spot in Canada to find a specific type of rock in what used to be a specific type of environment millions of years ago, start digging to a certain depth and find there "some type of strange" and, till then, completely unknown creature with exactly those anatomical features and stuff........ they just happened to luck out and find in that specific spot, of all the places in the world, exactly such a weird creature???

That sounds reasonable to you?!?



Brick wall? Reinforced concrete with machine guns on top of it, sounds more like it.
Your psychological defenses are the equivalent of a trillion dollar army.


Just think about what you are proposing by saying that "it's just a weird creature" and that the paleontologists who predicted to find such a weird creature in that exact location, just were ... "lucky".

Come on, man.
btw: the tracks in poland have actually been addressed by KomatiiteBIF in that discussion. I even think he brought them up himself. It seems you've already forgotten.

Creationists like to say that there are no transitionals.
Then you show them a transitional (literally a fish with tetrapod features), which was even found by prediction of all things.... the response? "lucky, it's just a weird creature"


Uhu.


I repeat:

View attachment 241326

They predicted the period for fish-to-tetrapod transition, went there and indeed found a strange creature that they can plug in that model (so far, so good)... then oops, someone finds tetrapod tracks eight million years before that predicted transition period. What’s wrong with that picture? And, excuse me, but who has their head in the sand here?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

102 pages. Wow.

 

[AACJ]

Biological evolution including shared ancestry between species (phylogenetics) is an applied science. Don't think it's going away any time soon.

Micro.

 

[AACJ]

Biological evolution including shared ancestry between species (phylogenetics) is an applied science. Don't think it's going away any time soon.

The art of applied philosophical assumptions. Committed macro-evolutionists: extraordinary bearers of faith.

 

[AACJ]

No scientific knowledge is 100% right. But it's still useful and that is what matters.

mathematical certainty: 2 + 2 =4, correct? 100% correct.

 

[AACJ]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

Well, we should be careful there. The application of scientific knowledge can lead to appropriate questions as well as suggest what might me probable.

 

[AACJ]

We don't generally talk about proof in science. What we talk about is evidence. We have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical, and we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Anyone who tells you otherwise about either point is either deeply confused or lying to you.

Quite the equation you're presenting.

 

[pitabread]

mathematical certainty: 2 + 2 =4, correct? 100% correct.

Mathematics is not science. And yes, it's possible to have logical proofs in math. Which is not the case with science.

 

[pitabread]

The art of applied philosophical assumptions. Committed macro-evolutionists: extraordinary bearers of faith.

You can project or deny as much as you'd like, it's still not going to change the fact that the science creationists complaining about is also a science with real-world applications.

 

[AACJ]

Mathematics is not science. And yes, it's possible to have logical proofs in math. Which is not the case with science.

Hi, Pita

Sure it is. It is a "systematic and formulated knowledge."

 

[AACJ]

You can project or deny as much as you'd like, it's still not going to change the fact that the science creationists complaining about is also a science with real-world applications.

You are aware of the fact that you are committed to a faith-based worldview, correct?

 

[AACJ]

You can project or deny as much as you'd like, it's still not going to change the fact that the science creationists complaining about is also a science with real-world applications.

You're agnostic? Are you a committed skeptic as well?

 

[pitabread]

Hi, Pita

Sure it is. It is a "systematic and formulated knowledge."

Just because something relates to knowledge doesn't automatically make it a science. There are many areas of knowledge that are not considered sciences either (e.g. philosophy, theology, etc).