For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Speedwell]

debatable..

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

And...?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And...?

'Piltdown Bird'....?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

debatable..

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

That was an early account of a specimen that has since turned out to be one of a separate lineage of therapods with membranous wings (like pterosaurs & bats). See A new Jurassic scansoriopterygid and the loss of membranous wings in theropod dinosaurs.

 

[Speedwell]

'Piltdown Bird'....?

Are you saying that the story is a fake? It looks to me like an interesting discovery.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you saying that the story is a fake? It looks to me like an interesting discovery.

agreed, so birds from dinos is at least debatable- and if it ultimately fails, it will not be the first time for a previously widely accepted example of Darwinian transition.

' ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time'

David Raup, Chicago Field Museum

 

[Speedwell]

agreed, so birds from dinos is at least debatable- and if it ultimately fails, it will not be the first time for a previously widely accepted example of Darwinian transition.

No, but that is how science works. "Widely accepted pending new evidence" is as good as it gets.

' ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time'

David Raup, Chicago Field Museum

A well-known mined quote, frequently cut and pasted from the work of YEC Walter T. Brown. Isn't it time you were up front with us about what you are really arguing for?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, but that is how science works. "Widely accepted pending new evidence" is as good as it gets.

Agreed, and plenty new evidence keeps pouring in, not terribly favorable to Darwinism I would submit to you!

A well-known mined quote, frequently cut and pasted from the work of YEC Walter T. Brown. Isn't it time you were up front with us about what you are really arguing for?

I'm not a 'YEC' and I've no idea who that is, I used to live near the Field museum in Chicago and visited it frequently, Sue the T Rex etc.
Raup, RIP, was no rank and file paleontologist but world renowned, and I respected his opinion even as a staunch Darwinist back then.

I assume you, and everyone here, is interested in the truth either way and enjoys discussing their viewpoints for their own personal interest-

At the very least I find that tends to make for a more interesting discussion than trading accusations of dishonesty. That gets boring pretty quickly

But if you have any substantive response to Raup's observation, I'd be interested in that

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed, and plenty new evidence keeps pouring in, not terribly favorable to Darwinism I would submit to you!

The only "evidence" you have mentioned so far is epigenetics, which is a part of evolutionary theory.

I'm not a 'YEC' and I've no idea who that is, I used to live near the Field museum in Chicago and visited it frequently, Sue the T Rex etc.
Raup, RIP, was no rank and file paleontologist but world renowned, and I respected his opinion even as a staunch Darwinist back then.

I assume you, and everyone here, is interested in the truth either way and enjoys discussing their viewpoints for their own personal interest-

At the very least I find that tends to make for a more interesting discussion than trading accusations of dishonesty. That gets boring pretty quickly

But if you have any substantive response to Raup's observation, I'd be interested in that

No response is necessary to the entire passage from which that quote was taken.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But if you have any substantive response to Raup's observation, I'd be interested in that

He explained what he meant by that quoted line:

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."​

It is not unusual for lineages to require reorganising when more or new data arrive; what at first look like clear and simple lines of descent become more complex so that a number of possible lineages could have produced the changes seen.

 

[Ophiolite]

I assume you, and everyone here, is interested in the truth either way and enjoys discussing their viewpoints for their own personal interest-

At the very least I find that tends to make for a more interesting discussion than trading accusations of dishonesty. That gets boring pretty quickly

The way to avoid this is to carry out proper validation of your sources. Had you done so in this instance you would have realised the quote does not support your argument and you would have looked for another, more relevant and supportive quote. If you had used the quote, knowing the context in which it was found that would have been dishonest. I don't think that was the case - I think you just did sloppy research. I look forward to a properly supported argument from you in future.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He explained what he meant by that quoted line:

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."​

It is not unusual for lineages to require reorganising when more or new data arrive; what at first look like clear and simple lines of descent become more complex so that a number of possible lineages could have produced the changes seen.

yes I agree, and in other words, what at first looks like clear simple definitive evidence, becomes rather more murky, speculative and inconclusive the deeper we look.

'less gradualistic' is another conflict between Darwin & Paleontology- the predominant pattern we have seen emerging from the fossil record, in contrast to the inherent predictions of the theory, from the days when the Cambrian explosion was considered a mere artifact of an incomplete record- it has only become ever more explosive- to the point that Darwinism itself has splintered into groups such as 'punctuated equilibrium'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The way to avoid this is to carry out proper validation of your sources. Had you done so in this instance you would have realised the quote does not support your argument and you would have looked for another, more relevant and supportive quote. If you had used the quote, knowing the context in which it was found that would have been dishonest. I don't think that was the case - I think you just did sloppy research. I look forward to a properly supported argument from you in future.

I'm arguing that the disappearing transitionals are an example of conflicts between Darwin & Paleontology. That's exactly what Raup was talking about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm arguing that the disappearing transitionals are an example of conflicts between Darwin & Paleontology. That's exactly what Raup was talking about.

All fossils are examples of transition except when they're immediately prior to extinction, as all populations are continually evolving. It's not that transitionals 'disappear', but that discoveries of new related species around the transitional period between the previous discoveries make the lines of descent ambiguous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All fossils are examples of transition except when they're immediately prior to extinction, as all populations are continually evolving. It's not that transitionals 'disappear', but that discoveries of new related species around the transitional period between the previous discoveries make the lines of descent ambiguous.

I take your point, but I agree with Raup on this, there used to be more definitive examples of transitions between two distinct species, before they were thrown into doubt or discarded entirely

Something else Raup noted that has emerged in the record is the striking LACK of evolution in many populations- aka stasis

Horseshoe crabs for example have remained essentially unchanged for 100's of millions of years.

.. things show up in the record, remain virtually unchanged for long periods, then suddenly disappear/ are replaced with something else or are still here.. its very difficult to find good examples of beneficial gradual adaptation to any great degree

that was Raup's characterization of the record

that's not a verbatim quote but I'll see if I can find one, he made this point quite clearly in several instances- he was an early 'punctuated equilibriumist'

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm arguing that the disappearing transitionals are an example of conflicts between Darwin & Paleontology. That's exactly what Raup was talking about.

A conflict judged by Raup to be resolved, as is clear from the full text. It is a common pedagogical technique to imagine difficulties with or objections to concepts, as a way of exploring them in more depth. That is the significance and function of Raup's quoted statement.

 

[Speedwell]

that's not a verbatim quote but I'll see if I can find one, he made this point quite clearly in several instances- he was an early 'punctuated equilibriumist'

And that is significant exactly how? Punctuated equilibrium is part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And that is significant exactly how? Punctuated equilibrium is part of the theory of evolution.

Because the gaps and jumps in the record were long held to be artifacts of incomplete data- punctuated equilibrium concedes to a large degree what skeptics said all along- the gaps are real, change does happen very suddenly, not gradually as predicted by the theory-

These are subjective terms of course, but not what Darwinists hoped to find:
"
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
"
David M. Raup

 

[Speedwell]

Because the gaps and jumps in the record were long held to be artifacts of incomplete data- punctuated equilibrium concedes to a large degree what skeptics said all along- the gaps are real, change does happen very suddenly, not gradually as predicted by the theory-

These are subjective terms of course, but not what Darwinists hoped to find:
"
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
"
David M. Raup

So you really arguing against "Darwinism" as an obsolete version of the theory of evolution. You don't need us for that, but let us know if you win. If you do, you can turn your attention to the Luminiferous Aether or the Phllogiston Theory of Heat,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you really arguing against "Darwinism" as an obsolete version of the theory of evolution. You don't need us for that, but let us know if you win. If you do, you can turn your attention to the Luminiferous Aether or the Phllogiston Theory of Heat,

Well I was going to tackle understanding Women next, but I'll stick to the easy stuff like abiogenesis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Something else Raup noted that has emerged in the record is the striking LACK of evolution in many populations- aka stasis

Horseshoe crabs for example have remained essentially unchanged for 100's of millions of years.

.. things show up in the record, remain virtually unchanged for long periods, then suddenly disappear/ are replaced with something else or are still here.. its very difficult to find good examples of beneficial gradual adaptation to any great degree

Why does the fact that animals like the horseshoe crab, the shark and the crocodile, have not changed significantly from their ancestors become a problem? If a creature succeeds in its biological niche, it will not change dramatically. That's something that the theory of evolution predicts, and we see that prediction fulfilled.