• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Observable evolution today.

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by searchingforanswers1, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. Randall McNally

    Randall McNally Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

    +130
    Agnostic
    US-Others
    No. Primordial life took the form of cyanobacteria (and possibly chemobacteria), which are photosynthesizers and are highly resistant to UV radiation.
    No problem. Oxygen wasn't needed. In fact, atmospheric oxygen was produced by the aforementioned cyanobacteria.
    Huh? I don't think you meant what you wrote here.
    Not simple but not implausible either. A billion years or so, a reducing atmosphere, electricity, millions of reactive atoms and competition for space and resources is all you need. And, interestingly enough, that's rather what the primordial earth looked like.
     
  2. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +386
    Agnostic
    I have, there work does not state there is no gradual development. Just that this development happens quick in geological timescales, so it is hard to find fossils on it. You should read the original articles by Gould and Elridge. They support there findings on punctuated equilibrium with gradual transition series found in isolated spots. They showed that we see organism A at a certain time and organim F as it's decendent, but that the transition B-C-D-E actually happened in an isolated place in a geologically short timescale. That is gradual, although it is not gradualism.

    I have researched the fossil record, and have found the transitional fossils to be more than abundantly present.
     
  3. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    I suppose I used the wrong word. I meant a transitional or formitively diversive species which would account for seperation in forms of organisms. (Single celled first life deversifying to from all past and present life.) An evolutionary development view must extend decreasin differential in organisms back to a certain point, at some point backwards tracing evolution would mean that an organism would have to clearly develop differences great enough to account for its own breeding line.

    Right, but people use evolution to defend both sides. I was adressing that evolution should be looked at aside from its use as atheist argumentative evidence. Hence my use of the word spin, as in, initially we have A (evolution) and B (anti-creationists) turn it into ~ (ew, now it looks gross).

    I did accidently refer to evolution when I meant naturalism, and I apologize for that. I've done that other places, and its my mistake, I admit it, but it is one of presentation rather than understanding, a typo. Sorry for the confusion.

    How does establishing what seperates living and non-living things clearly explain how a non-living thing could become a living one? (I am commonly mistaken for being hostile, I guess its how I phrase things. I'm not hostile, I'm asking honestly)

    Okay then (I'd like a reference, for my benefit). Once again, please cease the ad hominum. It is unkind and unwarranted.


    Aside frome theistic evolution, would you mind providing me with a way in which backtracking the evolutionary chain would not neccesitate a common descent.

    Bad sentence structure on my part. I meant that the seperation from an intial organism point would also have to account for extinct species.


    Okay, but if there is no need for sexual reproduction, why sexual distinction arise, and how would this sexual variation pass on? (don't state the obvious, two things had sex, but is it feasible to think that two complimentary sexual variations within inter-breedable organisms developed within geopraphic proximity to allow breeding?
    At some point asexual life must leap of the barrier, and produce sexually varied life, with complimentary variation in a proper timeframe to allow breeding between the two. If evolution is driven by need, why does asexual life cross the barrier, if evolution is driven by random mutation propagation, what biologically accounts for sudden sexual variation introduction.
     
  4. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    My understanding of the post I was referring to was that it meant steady-speedism or gradualism or whatever you want to call it was THE way in which differences in life came about. I making a position against this, not against gradualism in general. My apologies for the confusion.
     
  5. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    I just made a post explaining my comments about Gould, Mayr and gradualism. But I'll restate. In my opinion,the post I was responding to was suggesting that gradualism was the sole cause for organism differentiation. (subtle ad hominem by the way). My cow-dog concept was supposed to be ridiculous, it was an exageration intended to display the general flaw in differentiating organisms.

    Oh good, I love demonstratably untrue. Please do so. From the thousands I'll kindly ask for only . . . 10 (or 5, your choice) which cannot be disputed.

    As far as my religious need to say they do not exist, I have no problem with providing scientific or reasoned historical criticism of the fossils, just so you don't think I'm simply saying they aren't valid because I don't want them to be.
     
  6. Ondoher

    Ondoher Veteran

    +45
    Atheist
    Nobody thinks that evolution proceeds like clock work, with each generation making small changes at a steady monotonous pace that eventually causes forms to change and diversify. Gould et. al. just called attention to this, especially the stasis part of the process. However, this was something even Darwin recognized.
     
  7. Ondoher

    Ondoher Veteran

    +45
    Atheist
    Here are some good ones:

    [​IMG]
    Pederpes finneyae, a tetrapod from Romer's Gap.

    [​IMG]
    Australopithicus afarensis (Lucy), a chimp-like biped.

    [​IMG]
    Ambulocetus natans, a transitional whale.

    [​IMG]
    Archaeopteryx lithographica, a transitional bird.

    [​IMG]
    A transitional plankton series.
     
  8. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    Might I suggest you read the post I am referring to then?
     
  9. Ondoher

    Ondoher Veteran

    +45
    Atheist
    Is suspect you think that PE proposes that evolution happens rapidly. It doesn't. It proposes that compared to times of stasis, it happens rapidly. Like on the order of tens of thousands of years, and on small, isolated, populations. That's not rapid, just relatively so.
     
  10. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    (note, the links I am providing are meant to dispute the validity of these fossils or transitional fossils of the type in general, and at first, some general general ones)

    http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html
    http://www.defendyourfaith.com/fossil-main.htm#refuting-transitions
    http://www.bearfabrique.org/evolution/cenozoic
    http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/evolut.html
    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1998.html
    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

    Pederpes finneyae, a tetrapod from Romer's Gap.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp


    Australopithicus afarensis (Lucy), a chimp-like biped.

    http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/primates.htm
    http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay42.html


    Ambulocetus natans, a transitional whale.

    http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/cetacean.html
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm (I know you hate ICR, though I don't know why, but I'm after a big picture argument hear, always)


    Archaeopteryx lithographica, a transitional bird.

    http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/reptiles-birds.htm
    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html
    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ19.html
    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-195.htm
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist07.htm
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0104a.htm
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm

    Besides, some creationists (like Hugh Ross) claim a transitional fossil record actually supports (or at least does not discredit) creation.
     
  11. informedforGod

    informedforGod Member

    114
    +0
    Methodist
    US-Others
    PE? and no, I tend to shy away from specific statements about what I believe or don't, what I try to do is tear down compartmentalized skepticism. Introduce things which at least draw into question a person's beliefs. If I have ever done anything which jepordizes this I apologize whole heartedly.

    Again, my comments about Gould and gradualism related to a specific post stating that gradualism could stand on its own as an evolutionary form, as everyone who hatily responded to my post quickly noted, Guild and his buddies do not refute gradualism but say that it cannot be the soul mechanistic timeframe. Please don't make me say this again. I was refuting a specific post which seemed to suggest that gradualism by itself was a valid evolutionary concept.
     
  12. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +386
    Agnostic
    Could you explain to me what you think 'sudden' means as it is used by Gould and Elridge. Since I haven't seen my replies to your post answered in which I explain the difference between gradual development and 'gradualism'.
     
  13. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    are you mixing gradualism and constant-speedism again?
     
  14. Randall McNally

    Randall McNally Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

    +130
    Agnostic
    US-Others
    You don't know why we hate ICR? You don't know why we hate an organization that claims to do science, but artificially limits their conclusions from the outset only to those that support a particular, so-called "literal" interpretation of Scripture? You really don't know?

    And the "big picture"? How do armchair critiques from a body of scientists already committed to a particular agenda add to the big picture?
     
  15. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    can you not spam with links please? It is important that you get an understanding of the issues involved. posting links does not demonstrate an understanding, since those links themselves may well be full of errors.

    I will just whip over a few points from a randomly picked site on your list

    http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/reptiles-birds.htm

    wrong, it is actually possible to have partial flow through lungs, that could develop from tube lungs with no detrimental intermediates. granted they would not be as effective as flow through, but they would be a bit flow through and better than tube lungs for things like thermoregulation.

    This is misleading. It is not common scientific thought at all that feathers evolved from scales. alot of normal people might think that feathers developed from scales, but they are wrong.

    this doesn't present a problem, since evolution does not require all ancestral species of the various basal species to become extinct. This is just the evolutionary equivalent of a grandfather outliving his son and grandson, but not his great grandson.

    how do they determine that it is a bird, when it is replete with reptillian features? perching is highly questionable (the "perching" argument is based on the reversed hallux seen in the fossils), since the inverted hallux is most likely the result of how it died and not it's position in life, as a detailed analysis of the fossil shows (Middleton 2001-3). Archaeopteryx had a flat sternum, archaeopteryx had teeth and so on.

    the entire site just classifies anything with feathers as a bird, regardless of the amount of reptillian features that it has, and believe me, it is seriously glossing over the reprillian features. These animals are by definition transitional, since they are a mosaic of reptillian and avian features.

    the site continually presses on the a evolved from B point of view, when this is never claimed by scientists. we can never know if A is a direct descendent of B, however we can show familial relationships, similarities and from these infer the evolutionary pathway.

    ------

    so from this brief analysis, you can see that by posting the link, you have not really offered anything to the discussion, and what is more, you probably didn't know anything about the points that I have just rebutted. It is far better to actually write things yourself, with suitable backup from sources, preferably ensuring that you fully understand the issues at hand, and know both sides of the argument being presented. Many of the sources you presented are also well out of date

    now lets have a look at

    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-195.htm

    now here I will just post a response from a real expert on this stuff. I cannot post where I got this response as linking or even naming the forum is apparently in violation of the forum's rules, however if you wish for a link, feel free to pm me privately.

    (I am awaiting a reply from a moderator as to whether it is ok to give out a link to this site or not, even privately, and will not give the link out until it is cleared. If it is indeed against the rules then I will not give out the link)

    in answer to the claim

    found on the site above, the scientist responds:


     
  16. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    Now granted I am commiting the sin that I asked you not to here, i.e. mere quotation of someone elses work rather than writing it in my own words, however I am doing this with a point in mind; as you can see, the trivial dismissals of these matters presented by the links you gave clearly do not meet rigorous academic standards and effective argumentation of the points at hand, whereas the point above, as typed out from memory from someone who really does know his stuff is clearly complex and detailed.
     
  17. Ondoher

    Ondoher Veteran

    +45
    Atheist
    I originally had a much more detailed response to this, but, alas, Explorer blew up on me.

    A general comment first, It is much easier if you make your arguments in your own words, instead of just dumping a bunch or URL's into the post. Creationists sites are frequently full of the same misconceptions and misinformation, and trying to weigh down the conversation with this much redundancy will not help us get to the botom of the argument.

    My original response pointed out the amount of out of context quoting in these links, and in particular of people like Gould, Patterson and Raup.

    Here is information on a Gould quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote50.

    Here is information on the Patterson quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html.

    Here is information on a common Raup quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote25 .

    Note that in many of these instances, the original quote is not about evidence of transitionals in the fossil record, but more about gradualism.

    I just want to make the general observation here that what creationists think should be expected from the fossil record, and what science actually expects are very different.

    If common ancestry is true, then all species are related to each other in a single family tree, called a phylogeny. If that is true, then there must have exited species that had diagnostic character traits that were intermediate between an ancestor taxa and its descendents. Also, because of the branching nature of evolution, there may have existed a number of taxa that were not in the general line of descent, that also displayed these same character traits.

    Given the above, we can have some reasonable expectations of the fossil record. The first is that fossils that are found should fit within the overall phylogeny of living things. We should also be able to place these new species close to general lines of descent based on their shared traits, their intermediate traits, plus any specific derived traits unique to the species.

    Paleontology fills in this family tree when new species are identified, and this frequently results in the addition of new branches, or the shuffling around of branches as relationships become clearer.

    The fossil record is by no means complete, and as such, there are some rather large gaps where lines of descent are essentially linear. Even in these cases, synapomorphies support the general phylogenic relationsips between species, but there is a clear lack of refinement of the more derived traits.

    There are some areas of the phylogeny, such as humans, horses and cetaceans, where we have a wealth of data, and other places, such as early tetrapods, where the picture is less clear. To date, there have been no fossils that are inconsistent with our current picture of evolution.

    This link was a little more interesting than most of the others. I will highlight a few of the misleading points in it, here:
    In contrast, there are no novel mutations or genetic alleles that specifically characterize any one human race from another. More recent studies have confirmed the early work, likewise showing that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict from Darwinian theory.




    I am going to assume the author meant the Modern Synthesis, as Darwin new nothing of genetics, and certainly not DNA. The primary problem with this is that the modern sysnthesis would not make such a prediction. In fact, in light of punctuated equillibrium (PE), which suggests that speciation happens in small, isolated populations, we would expect a recent speciation to create just such a genetic botle neck.







    Then there is this quote:
    Although the 3.2 million year old fossil "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis), was said to be bipedal, her 2.6 million year old descendent, Australopithecus africanus, was indisputably arboreal.




    The cited reference does not support his claim that africanus was "indisputabley arboreal" and the implied claim that it was therefore not bipedal.







    In fact, this reference is really nothing more than a news item, and here is the relevent text from the cited source:
    And at the recent meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, researchers used these bones to show that the body proportions of africanus were more apelike--and perhaps more suited to a life in the trees--than those of afarensis, its presumed ancestor




    Note, it indicates that the fossil was perhaps more suited for life in the trees. Hardly the "indisputably arboreal" claim we were led to believe.







    Here is another quote from the paper:
    The fossil record indicates an accumulation of relatively rapid shifts in successive species, and certainly not any kind of gradualistic changes.




    This is interesting, but given what is actually expected from the fossil record, it is surely not a problem for evolution. Nobody expects to have a fossilized version of everything that ever lived. The point is, all the fossils we find fit within the standard phylogeny, and these fossils help to fill that in nicely.



    That's enough of that.


    Haha, I love this quote from that link:
    ‘Although the entire organism is intermediate in structure, it’s the combination of structures that is intermediate, not the nature of the structures themselves. Each of these organisms appears to be a fully functional organism full of fully functional structures.’




    It is like creationists expect transitional species to be some sort of retarded monster that could not possibly survive in the wild. This is absurd, all successful species are successful because they are adapted to their environment. Not because they happen to be part way to some future goal.



    Above and beyond that, of course, this does not address the fossil in question. The words "Pederpes finneyae" do not appear anywhere in this article.

    I'll come back to this.
    This is rather interesting, let's compare the image AiG shows of the fossil of Ambulocetus natans (the one on the bottom in this picture is supposed to represent what was actually found):
    [​IMG]

    to the actual fossil itself:
    [​IMG]

    It looks like they left out some of the fossil, doesn't it? Like the pelvis, and many of the vertebra. I wonder why they would do that.


    I'll come back to this too.

    That's an odd claim.
     
  18. HouseApe

    HouseApe Senior Veteran

    +172
    Atheist
    Married
    People still use IE? Please run, don't walk to http://www.mozilla.org/
     
  19. NeoTrio

    NeoTrio One Shot Kills

    109
    +3
    Other Religion
    I would use Mozilla if I could, but this isn't my computer.
     
  20. Ondoher

    Ondoher Veteran

    +45
    Atheist
    Getting back to the two I skipped:
    Neither of these links works, I'll assume you had no problem until you show me otherwise.

    This link mentiones Protoavis as a bird precursor. It should be noted that most paleontologists consider this to be a chimera:
    http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/The_Protoavis_controversy.





    Other than this, it makes some bold claims without references, such as this one:
    Archaeopteryx was a fully flying and perching bird.




    Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird, that's true. It wasn't a perching bird, as it lacked the proper anatomy. It also, however, had a staggering number of traits found in earlier dinosaurs. Ignoring those traits doesn't make for a very convincing argument.



    This link makes a big deal out of digit homology. This link will address this argument far better than I can: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html

    This link claims that Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Now this is an interesting new argument given your above arguments that Archy is clearly a bird. Is your argument that Archaeopteryx was clearly a bird or it was clearly a dinosaur with pasted on wings? You should pick a position and stick with it. At any rate, here is a refutation of this hoax claim: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC351.html

    I know that this link was addressed by God Fearing Atheist in another thread.

    I'm going to stop here. What I need you to do is start to address the actual data, and explain why Archaeopteryx does not fit the defintion of a transitional fossil. And be specific.
     
Loading...