The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Atheos canadensis]

I already told you that everything we know about actual singular designers tells us that they tend to design with a pattern of consistency, i.e. similar functions governed by similar structures. That is empirical support for a singular designer hypothesis for why similar things are similar. When I told you this, you immediately jumped into teleology talking about God being omnipotent and not being constrained like humans are. Now you're backpedaling and claiming your rationale is independent of such arguments.

Actually it was you who first brought up the teleological argument against creationism in response to me saying that we know observationally that similar morphology is not necessarily reflected by similar molecules. Following the discussion thread will reveal that from the first time you brought it up I have said that the teleological argument is not necessary. As I said in a previous post, the fact that morphological and molecular phylogenies display such overwhelming consilience is evidence for evolution because common ancestry explains why they agree so closely despite the evidence that they don't have to.

Like I said. We know from observation that actual singular designers tend to design that in consistent patterns. You want my reasoning to be arbitrary but it isn't. It's true that I could accommodate many different patterns by saying 'God did it' (just as you could accommodate countless other fossil patterns by saying 'Natural Selection did it'), but I have sound reason for expecting the current one, that is, 'similar animals are similar'. It is an expected consequence of known singular design.

But your reasoning is arbitrary. Again, we know from direct observation that similar morphology doesn't always equal similar molecules. You say that similar things have similar molecules because of a single designer, except when they don't.

I have no problem with the claim that this biological pattern conforms to evolutionary expectations, but in my opinion it is silly to use such a pattern, that is, 'similar animals are similar' to try and persuade others of evolution's truthfulness. If you feel that is a convincing argument, then by all means... But to me it looks more like a last resort of falling back on something trivial and lauding it as the star witness to your creation narrative.

And I wonder why, if teleological considerations are so unimportant to the argument like you allege, that it is usually presented alongside the notion that a designer could have designed animals differently, with analogies to unique human designs? (like it is presented on TalkOrigins) Seems that, in practice, the evolutionist does not believe he can effectively persuade without invoking designer arguments.

Teleological arguments are not necessary to support evolutionary arguments, but they are pretty much guaranteed to show up in discussions that deal with creationism. That seems obvious and in no way suggests that teleological arguments are to any degree necessary to support evolutionary theory.

Like I said, if the claimed strength of the theory is based off of a dataset that could have been completely different and still accommodated, then we run into the same issue. It doesn't mean the theory isn't supported in other ways, but it would be misleading to advance the prior mentioned dataset as leading evidence for it.

Hmm, you've actually just reiterated your opinion without directly addressing the argument I made. Let's lay it out clearly (and in very simplified terms) so you can respond directly:

- Fossil assemblage X shows that Australia and Antarctica were at one time attached.

- If Australia had shared assembalge X with North America instead, this would not invalidate the theory of plate tectonics.

- Despite this, assemblage X still provides evidence that Australia was attached to Antarctica and thus that plate tectonics is a real process.

Please tell me which point you disagree with and your reasoning for disagreeing.

I do not know enough about plate tectonics to comment on such consilience. However I am familiar with the supposed "consilience of evidence" for evolution, and in general most of it is not what it appears to be when you look under the hood.

Google is your friend. Note that these independent lines of evidence, although they all could point to different specific arrangements of plates and relationships of continents, nonetheless provide evidence that plate tectonics is a real process.


Also, I may be a while in making any further responses because I'm sending my computer in for repair.

 

[lifepsyop]

First, I'm assuming that you concede all the above points since you have declined to address them. If not, I'd prefer to keep this discussion all in one place rather than fragmented and mixed through the thread.

I already conceded that paleontologists are more aware of the issue than I thought. However since the same errors are still being made today, I do not see that this alleviates the implications that an unknown number of taxa may be misidentified. But since it's something I can only speculate on, I'm not interested in continuing to argue it.

We can see that the 259 Campanian species are separated pretty well geographically which is a good indication that they aren't conspecifics.

So by simply looking at stratigraphic and geographic segregation, we can see that a substantial portion of the species named are most likely not the same.

This is interesting because if your assumptions are wrong about stratigraphy/geography representing geologic timelines/environments, then your taxanomical interpretations are totally flawed.

But ring species require a physical barrier to form a ring around, such as a mountain range or ocean etc. No such structure exists in the HCF where this progression of Triceratops is found.

You're still assuming the rock layers have to represent actual intact ecological environments. If the sediments were transported from a remote location then it would be kind of hard to see what barriers had been there.

It makes still less sense when we consider that the Flood would have had to gather up the species as it travelled through the geographic ranges of this hypothesiszed coeval morphological spectrum between the two species and then deposit them in order without mixing them up. Unless you think this world flood crept up, drowned one population, deposited it, then moved on to the next, drowned it, deposited it and so on.

It's not unreasonable to think order of deposition may match an order of geographic separation in some cases. It would indeed be strange if that's the pattern we saw everywhere, but we don't. In many cases, lots of diversity appears or disappears suddenly, or is not in any discernible linear progression. Evolution does not predict a regular signal of progression either, as primitive character states may potentially fossilize after advanced states.

Not all speciation is anagenic as in this example. And that is in any case an evasion. You suggested that we were seeing reproductive isolation producing two distinct morphs. You should address the fact that we don't see a pattern of two morphs gradually diverging. Instead we see one species gradually becoming more similar to a species higher in section.

I've been addressing it. I don't assume stratigraphic regions represent a continuous environment where anything could "gradually diverge", whereas you have to assume it.

Again, this threatens to branch off into a rather substantial tangent. It boils down to you thinking that the mechanisms of evolution are not sufficient to produce all life's diversity but you think that plasticity and reproductive isolation (which you insists will never result in speciation) are sufficient, despite the experimentally-observed limits to plasticity. And as mentioned previously, plasticity is actually thought to perhaps play a starting role in the initiation of speciation events.

Plasticity and/or reproductively isolated breeds are the most reasonable explanations for life's diversity. Assuming mutation and selection have somehow created everything from a common ancestor is little more than an exercise of the unbounded imagination and Darwinian mysticism.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is interesting because if your assumptions are wrong about stratigraphy/geography representing geologic timelines/environments, then your taxanomical interpretations are totally flawed.

The only one using incorrect interpretations is you. You think that looking at one snapshot in time in one geographic area is sufficient to make grand pronouncements about the presence of a species world wide and throughout time. At no time can we assume that a fossil is a representative of the earliest emergence of that species or of a particular feature. You are making that assumption, and it isn't justified by data or reason.

You're still assuming the rock layers have to represent actual intact ecological environments. If the sediments were transported from a remote location then it would be kind of hard to see what barriers had been there.

Are you saying that entire slabs of rock were moved around the globe and restacked like shuffling a deck of cards?

It's not unreasonable to think order of deposition may match an order of geographic separation in some cases.

Yes, it is unreasonable. If you have an uninterrupted sediment bed it means that those sediments were created right there on top of one another. Geologic forces don't shuffle hard rock into new geologic columns like playing cards.

In many cases, lots of diversity appears or disappears suddenly, or is not in any discernible linear progression. Evolution does not predict a regular signal of progression either, as primitive character states may potentially fossilize after advanced states.

Just as finding modern examples of monotremes does not falsify the evolution of modern placental mammals from monotreme ancestors. Why you think this is a problem is beyond me.

I've been addressing it. I don't assume stratigraphic regions represent a continuous environment where anything could "gradually diverge", whereas you have to assume it.

What evidence do you have that they aren't exactly what they show themselves to be?

Can you take a sediment bed out of the middle of the Grand Canyon, and insert it below the chalk cliffs at Dover? How does that work?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As for your question, I would say many are probably misidentified, but most aren't. There are approximately 1339 species of dinosaur recognized at the moment. Breaking it down stratigraphically.

So let me see if I have this correct. 5 of the 12 species studied were found to be misclassified, yet you somehow interpret this to mean it's not a problem? Of the 12 studied 5 were wrong and 7 right - but only because those 7 were left as the species they were claimed to be and not compared to any others or earlier claims of descent.

So answer me this. Since we know the Chinook is the product of an English Mastiff and Husky, and it appeared suddenly in the record with no previous links - why do you not apply the natural process we observe in the here and now to the past? The Husky or Mastiff do not slowly evolve into the Chinook. The Chinook suddenly appears in the record (overnight as a matter of fact), just as is observed in the fossil record.

The logical conclusion to take one example is that Triceratops mated with another breed within the horned dinosaur kind and T. Prorsus appeared overnight. The Triceratops did not evolve into the T. Prorsus any more than the Husky evolved into the Chinook.

And this is why the links between the husky and Chinook and Triceratops and T. Prorsus are missing. Because they never existed in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let me see if I have this correct. 5 of the 12 species studied were found to be misclassified, yet you somehow interpret this to mean it's not a problem? Of the 12 studied 5 were wrong and 7 right - but only because those 7 were left as the species they were claimed to be and not compared to any others or earlier claims of descent.

So answer me this. Since we know the Chinook is the product of an English Mastiff and Husky, and it appeared suddenly in the record with no previous links - why do you not apply the natural process we observe in the here and now to the past? The Husky or Mastiff do not slowly evolve into the Chinook. The Chinook suddenly appears in the record (overnight as a matter of fact), just as is observed in the fossil record.

The logical conclusion to take one example is that Triceratops mated with another breed within the horned dinosaur kind and T. Prorsus appeared overnight. The Triceratops did not evolve into the T. Prorsus any more than the Husky evolved into the Chinook.

Why do you keep making this incorrect claim. You keep forgetting that the one that was looked into that I could find Horner was wrong. He was likely to be wrong on other claims. All that he did was to show that some dinosaur fossils were not adults. He did not show that they were misidentified.

And why do you keep asking a question that if true would falsify evolution and pretending somehow that because you strawman never happens that is evidence against evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

So let me see if I have this correct. 5 of the 12 species studied were found to be misclassified, yet you somehow interpret this to mean it's not a problem?

Transitional fossils are not determined by the name we give them. We don't need to know if a group of transitional fossils belonged to different species or the same species in order to determine that they are transitional. Whether we split fossils up into Homo habilis and Homo erecuts or group them together as H. erectus, it doesn't matter with respect to the transitional features found in those fossils.

So answer me this. Since we know the Chinook is the product of an English Mastiff and Husky, and it appeared suddenly in the record with no previous links - why do you not apply the natural process we observe in the here and now to the past? The Husky or Mastiff do not slowly evolve into the Chinook. The Chinook suddenly appears in the record (overnight as a matter of fact), just as is observed in the fossil record.

How do you determine if a fossil had ancestors or descendants? How can you make claims about the ancestors of a fossil never being different? How do you do this?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I already conceded that paleontologists are more aware of the issue than I thought. However since the same errors are still being made today, I do not see that this alleviates the implications that an unknown number of taxa may be misidentified. But since it's something I can only speculate on, I'm not interested in continuing to argue it.

Fair enough, but there was more that you skipped than just paleontological awareness of this issue. What about the following:

1.My argument is that the research into plasticity and ontogeny have furnished us with the ability to detect them well enough in the fossil record to correct and avoid many possible errors and that we are therefore justified in making conclusions based on the fossil record. This is not the same as saying that the study of the these two sources of intraspecific variation "removes the possibility that it is causing classification errors".

2.I should point out that our ability to assess approximate age (juvenile, subadult, adult) histologically is sufficiently advanced that we don't necessarily need a large sample size to identify, say, juvenile bone structure.

3.It is logical to assume that there is more to learn about the phenomenon. It is not well-founded to assume that, because our knowledge is incomplete, paleontologists are not capable of making reliable assessments of its presence in the fossil record and are therefore not capable of making reliable assessments based on the fossil record.

4.neither the skull in general nor the teeth in particular displayed plasticity by changing in response to diet and that the fact that even these minor osteological differences did not change suggests that the suite of far more noticeable changes to cranial morphology between T. horridus and T. prorsus is beyond the limits of plasticity.

It would be interesting to carry out such a study, but your personal confidence that your prediction would be vindicated is hardly to be considered support for your position.

Plasticity, as has been noted in the research presented here, is capable of limited change, generally below what we observe between species. It is but a small part of the greater possibilities for change associated with evolutionary processes.

This is interesting because if your assumptions are wrong about stratigraphy/geography representing geologic timelines/environments, then your taxanomical interpretations are totally flawed.

I take from this that you concede my point that the validity of most dinosaur taxa is upheld if my assumptions about what the rock record represents are correct. Is this right? If you disagree with the reasoning (besides the objection to the interpretation of the rock record) please explain your reasons for doing so.

You're still assuming the rock layers have to represent actual intact ecological environments. If the sediments were transported from a remote location then it would be kind of hard to see what barriers had been there.

Again, your sudden focus on the provenance of the rock record implies a concession, in this case that your ring species/variant idea is discredited if conventional geology is accepted. Is this correct? If you do concede these points then it would do no harm to move into this discussion of the rock record, but otherwise they will be a distraction and my time grows short for the immediate future.

It's not unreasonable to think order of deposition may match an order of geographic separation in some cases. It would indeed be strange if that's the pattern we saw everywhere, but we don't. In many cases, lots of diversity appears or disappears suddenly, or is not in any discernible linear progression. Evolution does not predict a regular signal of progression either, as primitive character states may potentially fossilize after advanced states.

It really is unreasonable though. Remember that, regardless of whether you accept that the rocks in which they're buried represent actual environments, the Triceratops species in this example are all buried in the same geographic area. This means that your Flood would have to move along this morphocline and do something pretty strange. It would have to drown one morph, deposit it, move farther along the morphocline to drown the next morph and deposit it in the same area as the first, but somehow without disturbing the already-deposited strata (which in your scheme would not have time to be consolidated), and continue on in that manner. Or it could drown all the morphs at once and somehow sort them, but I think you would agree that that is even more absurd.

It doesn't sound reasonable at all and I suspect that you (or anyone you cared to cite) would be unable to present a scenario that is reasonable, i.e. conforms to what we observe of how water deposits sediment.

I've been addressing it. I don't assume stratigraphic regions represent a continuous environment where anything could "gradually diverge", whereas you have to assume it

.

So again you concede that, if conventional geology is correct, your idea of the distinct morphs being caused by reproductive isolation doesn't fit with the pattern seen in the HCF. If you do in fact make that concession then it would not be unreasonable to discuss geology.

Plasticity and/or reproductively isolated breeds are the most reasonable explanations for life's diversity. Assuming mutation and selection have somehow created everything from a common ancestor is little more than an exercise of the unbounded imagination and Darwinian mysticism.

And how do you justify this claim when the experimental results show a limit to plasticity that falls short of the difference seen between species?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So let me see if I have this correct. 5 of the 12 species studied were found to be misclassified, yet you somehow interpret this to mean it's not a problem? Of the 12 studied 5 were wrong and 7 right - but only because those 7 were left as the species they were claimed to be and not compared to any others or earlier claims of descent.

So answer me this. Since we know the Chinook is the product of an English Mastiff and Husky, and it appeared suddenly in the record with no previous links - why do you not apply the natural process we observe in the here and now to the past? The Husky or Mastiff do not slowly evolve into the Chinook. The Chinook suddenly appears in the record (overnight as a matter of fact), just as is observed in the fossil record.

The logical conclusion to take one example is that Triceratops mated with another breed within the horned dinosaur kind and T. Prorsus appeared overnight. The Triceratops did not evolve into the T. Prorsus any more than the Husky evolved into the Chinook.

And this is why the links between the husky and Chinook and Triceratops and T. Prorsus are missing. Because they never existed in the first place.

I'll just paste this here from my other post which you neglected to answer:

Did you actually read the paper to any degree? It's free and not that long. How is T. prorsus' appearance sudden when the paper describes the gradual changes in morphology as T. horridus specimens from the lower two thirds of the HCF gain increasingly T. prorsus-like features until the distinction of a different species is conferred to it in the upper third of the HCF.

This is not analogous to your dog example. What you're describing is the product of a mix between two other breeds. The Chinook has colouring like the mastiff, though the pattern of its colouring is often similar to the husky. Its build and face are more husky-like but its skull is still more blocky than a husky and its ears droop like the mastiff. That is not at all what we're seeing in the HCF. We're not seeing T. horridus and some other breed of Triceratops (T. x) near the base of the HCF and then above that a bunch of Triceratops that have a mixture of T. horridus and T.x characters. We're not seeing T. prorsus suddenly appearing with its entire character suite. We're seeing a gradual change in morphology as T. horridus specimens from the lower two thirds of the HCF gain increasingly T. prorsus-like features as they approach the upper third.

 

[lifepsyop]

I take from this that you concede my point that the validity of most dinosaur taxa is upheld if my assumptions about what the rock record represents are correct. Is this right? If you disagree with the reasoning (besides the objection to the interpretation of the rock record) please explain your reasons for doing so.

Again, your sudden focus on the provenance of the rock record implies a concession, in this case that your ring species/variant idea is discredited if conventional geology is accepted. Is this correct? If you do concede these points then it would do no harm to move into this discussion of the rock record, but otherwise they will be a distraction and my time grows short for the immediate future.

Of course I do not accept that rock layers represent millions of years. I thought you already knew that.

It really is unreasonable though.

No. Unreasonable is believing that a fish can gradually transform into a man. Believing that nature performs miracles is unreasonable.

Remember that, regardless of whether you accept that the rocks in which they're buried represent actual environments, the Triceratops species in this example are all buried in the same geographic area. This means that your Flood would have to move along this morphocline and do something pretty strange. It would have to drown one morph, deposit it, move farther along the morphocline to drown the next morph and deposit it in the same area as the first, but somehow without disturbing the already-deposited strata (which in your scheme would not have time to be consolidated), and continue on in that manner. Or it could drown all the morphs at once and somehow sort them, but I think you would agree that that is even more absurd.

I don't follow you. I'm simply imagining multiple populations being subsequently overtaken and transported in the same water currents towards the same general depositional region. A is deposited, then B, then C, etc. Layers of sediment do not have to be hardened for stratification to occur. Stratification occurs quite rapidly in moving water. I'm assuming you're aware of this.

So again you concede that, if conventional geology is correct, your idea of the distinct morphs being caused by reproductive isolation doesn't fit with the pattern seen in the HCF. If you do in fact make that concession then it would not be unreasonable to discuss geology.

If I believed conventional geology was correct then I probably wouldn't even be here arguing in the first place.

And how do you justify this claim when the experimental results show a limit to plasticity that falls short of the difference seen between species?

Experiments have in no way revealed the extent of plasticity on anything, and read that I said and/or reproductive isolation which is certainly more likely to produce extreme variations in morphospace as is seen in the example of dogs. This of course is more reasonable than the mystical "evolutionary" assumption.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll just paste this here from my other post which you neglected to answer:

Did you actually read the paper to any degree? It's free and not that long. How is T. prorsus' appearance sudden when the paper describes the gradual changes in morphology as T. horridus specimens from the lower two thirds of the HCF gain increasingly T. prorsus-like features until the distinction of a different species is conferred to it in the upper third of the HCF.

This is not analogous to your dog example. What you're describing is the product of a mix between two other breeds. The Chinook has colouring like the mastiff, though the pattern of its colouring is often similar to the husky. Its build and face are more husky-like but its skull is still more blocky than a husky and its ears droop like the mastiff. That is not at all what we're seeing in the HCF. We're not seeing T. horridus and some other breed of Triceratops (T. x) near the base of the HCF and then above that a bunch of Triceratops that have a mixture of T. horridus and T.x characters. We're not seeing T. prorsus suddenly appearing with its entire character suite. We're seeing a gradual change in morphology as T. horridus specimens from the lower two thirds of the HCF gain increasingly T. prorsus-like features as they approach the upper third.

Except that isn't quite true is it, since T Horridus is a different breed just as T. Prorsus is, now isn't it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Classification

So those T Horridus are the breed that relates to the Chinook - and when it mated with another breed of the same kind, T. Prorsus came about. You observe nothing different in the here and now except you like to pretend it happens differently in the past. I can take every dog skeleton that exists and show you the same exact thing you misinterpret in the fossil record - a slow blending of what you think are different species.

Only one problem with your idea. T. Prorsus and T. Horridus are merely different breeds of Triceratops - not separate species. If Triceratops is a species, you are left with no other choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Again, just as we observe today in reality versus fantasy. And we know in plant and animal husbandry studies exactly how those different infraspecific taxa come about - and at no time has a new species ever been observed. Or even the hint of one.

If you want to call them subspecies fine - just realize it occurs through the natural process of mating different breeds as we observe in actual experiments in plant and animal husbandry. And at no time did anything ever evolve over time into another creature. Two breeds are intermixed and another breed occurs. As is shown over and over and over again in reality versus fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that isn't quite true is it, since T Horridus is a different breed just as T. Prorsus is, now isn't it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Classification

So those T Horridus are the breed that relates to the Chinook - and when it mated with another breed of the same kind, T. Prorsus came about. You observe nothing different in the here and now except you like to pretend it happens differently in the past. I can take every dog skeleton that exists and show you the same exact thing you misinterpret in the fossil record - a slow blending of what you think are different species.

Only one problem with your idea. T. Prorsus and T. Horridus are merely different breeds of Triceratops - not separate species. If Triceratops is a species, you are left with no other choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Again, just as we observe today in reality versus fantasy. And we know in plant and animal husbandry studies exactly how those different infraspecific taxa come about - and at no time has a new species ever been observed. Or even the hint of one.

If you want to call them subspecies fine - just realize it occurs through the natural process of mating different breeds as we observe in actual experiments in plant and animal husbandry. And at no time did anything ever evolve over time into another creature. Two breeds are intermixed and another breed occurs. As is shown over and over and over again in reality versus fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry

Wrong, you are simply making assumptions that have no basis in fact. You have no evidence that supports your claims. And it is simply wishful thinking where you compare to what can be done with a species that has gone under intense artificial selection and then try to claim that you can do the same with species that no longer exist that were formed with natural selection. You should discuss this with a biologist first to see if you argument has an merit at all. I am betting against you.

And the whole argument is a red herring anyway. Even if you were right about the number of dinosaurs it would not affect the theory of evolution one iota.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong, you are simply making assumptions that have no basis in fact. You have no evidence that supports your claims.

No it is you that are making assumptions that have no basis in facts with no evidence to support your claims.

You have never observed any species becoming anything but subspecies, variates, subvarieties, formae, breeds or in other words infraspecific taxa. Not in observation of the natural world around us, or in any any experiment ever done.

And it is simply wishful thinking where you compare to what can be done with a species that has gone under intense artificial selection and then try to claim that you can do the same with species that no longer exist that were formed with natural selection. You should discuss this with a biologist first to see if you argument has an merit at all. I am betting against you.

And that artificial selection is no different than what happens naturally over millions of years instead of thousands or even months. Or those biologists would not be trying to mutate E coli and other microbial life artificially in a failed attempt to create something new. Ooops, you kinda forgot about your claim with genetic experiments didn't you.

And the whole argument is a red herring anyway. Even if you were right about the number of dinosaurs it would not affect the theory of evolution one iota.

I know it wouldn't. Because even if something falsified your belief's you wouldn't admit it. So even if you are wrong, you are still right. I understand fallacy when I see it, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is you that are making assumptions that have no basis in facts with no evidence to support your claims.

Wrong again, or did you forget that you have shown many times over that you do not know what scientific evidence is. On this subject I am willing to admit that I do not know very much, but even in that case it is rather obvious that you know even less.

You have never observed any species becoming anything but subspecies, variates, subvarieties, formae, breeds or in other words infraspecific taxa. Not in observation of the natural world around us, or in any any experiment ever done.

That is not so. Of course you will move the goal posts and incorrectly use circular arguments when shown the cases of evolution. We can see evolution in action today with ring species. We can see well documented evolution in certain marine organisms such as graptolites and echinoderms. They are not very exciting so creationists tend to ignore them.

And that artificial selection is no different than what happens naturally over millions of years instead of thousands or even months. Or those biologists would not be trying to mutate E coli and other microbial life artificially in a failed attempt to create something new. Ooops, you kinda forgot about your claim with genetic experiments didn't you.

Actually it is quite different since the environments that they were chosen for are artificial as well. The rate of change is much higher than it would ever be in nature. And I am unaware of any failed experiments using E. coli. I am familiar with at least one very successful one. But go ahead, I would like to see another epic fail by you.

I know it wouldn't. Because even if something falsified your belief's you wouldn't admit it. So even if you are wrong, you are still right. I understand fallacy when I see it, do you?

Wrong, unlike creationists I am honest. Sadly since you have no idea what qualifies as scientific evidence I cannot even ask you what scientific evidence would convince you that you were wrong. If you remember Ken Ham he showed his stripes quite clearly. He was very proud to announce that his beliefs were unreasonable.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Of course I do not accept that rock layers represent millions of years. I thought you already knew that.

You forgot these again:

1.My argument is that the research into plasticity and ontogeny have furnished us with the ability to detect them well enough in the fossil record to correct and avoid many possible errors and that we are therefore justified in making conclusions based on the fossil record. This is not the same as saying that the study of the these two sources of intraspecific variation "removes the possibility that it is causing classification errors".

2.I should point out that our ability to assess approximate age (juvenile, subadult, adult) histologically is sufficiently advanced that we don't necessarily need a large sample size to identify, say, juvenile bone structure.

3.It is logical to assume that there is more to learn about the phenomenon. It is not well-founded to assume that, because our knowledge is incomplete, paleontologists are not capable of making reliable assessments of its presence in the fossil record and are therefore not capable of making reliable assessments based on the fossil record.

4.neither the skull in general nor the teeth in particular displayed plasticity by changing in response to diet and that the fact that even these minor osteological differences did not change suggests that the suite of far more noticeable changes to cranial morphology between T. horridus and T. prorsus is beyond the limits of plasticity.

It would be interesting to carry out such a study, but your personal confidence that your prediction would be vindicated is hardly to be considered support for your position.

Plasticity, as has been noted in the research presented here, is capable of limited change, generally below what we observe between species. It is but a small part of the greater possibilities for change associated with evolutionary processes.

By your continued silence on these matters I take it you have conceded these points.

Of course I do not accept that rock layers represent millions of years. I thought you already knew that.

Obviously. That wasn't the question. Let's rephrase. The fact that you have now turned to contesting the origin of the rock record means that you are otherwise unable to refute the points I've made. So do you concede that, unless you could somehow refute conventional geology, that the stratigraphic segregation I outlined demonstrates that the majority of dinosaur species aren't classified in error? And do you concede that, unless you could somehow refute conventional geology, your attempt to explain the Triceratops of the HCF as ring species is refuted? If so then I would be happy to get into the geology.

Note that in both cases I am not asking you if you accept conventional geology, which you obviously don't.

I don't follow you. I'm simply imagining multiple populations being subsequently overtaken and transported in the same water currents towards the same general depositional region. A is deposited, then B, then C, etc. Layers of sediment do not have to be hardened for stratification to occur. Stratification occurs quite rapidly in moving water. I'm assuming you're aware of this.

So you've gone with option B: the Flood could drown all the morphs, suspend them together and then somehow sort them. This makes no sense. How could the same current suspend these populations and yet keep them separate and deposit them all in the same place but ordered from T. horridus-like to T. prorsus-like? That's just not how water deposition works.

If I believed conventional geology was correct then I probably wouldn't even be here arguing in the first place

.

Again, obviously you don't accept conventional geology. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you concede that, unless you could refute conventional geology, your idea of the distinct morphs being caused by reproductive isolation doesn't fit with the pattern seen in the HCF. So do you? Remember, I'm not asking if you accept mainstream geology.

Experiments have in no way revealed the extent of plasticity on anything, and read that I said and/or reproductive isolation which is certainly more likely to produce extreme variations in morphospace as is seen in the example of dogs. This of course is more reasonable than the mystical "evolutionary" assumption.

And you base this assertion on what? You just think it? My position is based on the experimentally outlined limits of plasticity. Your position is based on nothing but your belief that the limits go far beyond that.

Edited for formatting

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Except that isn't quite true is it, since T Horridus is a different breed just as T. Prorsus is, now isn't it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Classification

So those T Horridus are the breed that relates to the Chinook - and when it mated with another breed of the same kind, T. Prorsus came about. You observe nothing different in the here and now except you like to pretend it happens differently in the past. I can take every dog skeleton that exists and show you the same exact thing you misinterpret in the fossil record - a slow blending of what you think are different species.

Only one problem with your idea. T. Prorsus and T. Horridus are merely different breeds of Triceratops - not separate species. If Triceratops is a species, you are left with no other choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Again, just as we observe today in reality versus fantasy. And we know in plant and animal husbandry studies exactly how those different infraspecific taxa come about - and at no time has a new species ever been observed. Or even the hint of one.

If you want to call them subspecies fine - just realize it occurs through the natural process of mating different breeds as we observe in actual experiments in plant and animal husbandry. And at no time did anything ever evolve over time into another creature. Two breeds are intermixed and another breed occurs. As is shown over and over and over again in reality versus fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry

Perhaps you could respond more directly to the argument I made. Please justify your assertion that T. prorsus appears suddenly despite the gradual appearance of its suite of characters from the bottom to the top of the HCF?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong again, or did you forget that you have shown many times over that you do not know what scientific evidence is. On this subject I am willing to admit that I do not know very much, but even in that case it is rather obvious that you know even less.

Yet despite your claims to the contrary, the only time we see change in a species is when two different subspecies of that group mate - producing varieties (breeds) of those same species.

Your evidence is "claims" that it happened differently in the past. You have no clear graduation in the fossil record, but gaps. What in your beliefs are simply missing links. You believe this despite the fact that in the real world two different breeds (infraspecific taxa) mate and produce a third breed overnight. So the logical deduction would be to apply this observation to the fossil record, and suddenly the sudden appearance of what you incorrectly call a new species is not surprising at all. (You know, that incorrect classification in the fossil record that won't affect it one iota).

That is not so. Of course you will move the goal posts and incorrectly use circular arguments when shown the cases of evolution. We can see evolution in action today with ring species. We can see well documented evolution in certain marine organisms such as graptolites and echinoderms. They are not very exciting so creationists tend to ignore them.

You seem to be moving the goalposts. I thought we were discussing species?????

Echinoderms is a useless classification. You have never seen a starfish produce offspring with a sea cucumber. You have never seen sea cucumber become new species - merely infraspecific taxa.

No you don't, you see new infraspecific taxa from the mixing of genes between two subspecies or varieties of the same species. They are quite exciting when one stops ignoring how reproduction actually works.

Actually it is quite different since the environments that they were chosen for are artificial as well. The rate of change is much higher than it would ever be in nature. And I am unaware of any failed experiments using E. coli. I am familiar with at least one very successful one. But go ahead, I would like to see another epic fail by you.

Strawman alert:

First we are told we can't use controlled experiments because the rate of change is much higher than would ever be in nature.

Then we are being told that controlled experiments that changed the rate of E coli much higher than would be found in nature is valid.

Let alone the tiny missing fact that we ended up with E coli - just a different infraspecific taxa within the Kind E coli is part of. This of course is left out, because otherwise it would dispute their claims. But I challenge any evolutionist to show me a single experiment in which one species becomes another species - instead of just merely infraspecific taxa?

Wrong, unlike creationists I am honest.

Is that what you call ignoring the data and misinterpreting the evidence?

Sadly since you have no idea what qualifies as scientific evidence I cannot even ask you what scientific evidence would convince you that you were wrong.

One species changing into anything but infraspecific taxa for starters?????

If you remember Ken Ham he showed his stripes quite clearly. He was very proud to announce that his beliefs were unreasonable.

Strawman alert:

Of course he was wrong - he believes in a young earth based upon incorrect translations of the Hebrew word "hayah".

How could he come to anything but the wrong conclusion based upon a faulty premise? Just as you come to the wrong conclusion based upon the faulty premise that in the past, reproduction happened differently than is observed today. Simply because what you observe today doesn't fit your beliefs.

So even though you have never seen anything but infraspecific taxa - suddenly the Chimpanzee species gives rise to the human species, instead of the subspecies or variety it would be if evolution were true. So in a mad scramble to prove the natural reproduction process as observed is not how it happens, you force change in E coli rapidly in the lab (even though forced rates of change are not valid) and end up with E coli - exactly what you started with. And this somehow in your convoluted reasoning supports evolution?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps you could respond more directly to the argument I made. Please justify your assertion that T. prorsus appears suddenly despite the gradual appearance of its suite of characters from the bottom to the top of the HCF?

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-insights-evolving-triceratops-montana-hell.html

"The Hell Creek Formation contains lower, middle and upper subdivisions. When the team studied Triceratops skulls' morphology and position in the strata, they found that skulls showing only features of T. horridus appeared only in the lower section, while skulls exhibiting only T. prorsus features appeared only in the upper section."

There is no missing graduation. Just the mating of two breeds of the same dinosaurs and the sudden appearance of T. Prorsus in the fossil record. That evolutionists misconstrue this to mean one evolved into another, instead of what we actually observe to happen - is a problem you all have with accepting the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet despite your claims to the contrary, the only time we see change in a species is when two different subspecies of that group mate - producing varieties (breeds) of those same species.

Your evidence is "claims" that it happened differently in the past. You have no clear graduation in the fossil record, but gaps. What in your beliefs are simply missing links. You believe this despite the fact that in the real world two different breeds (infraspecific taxa) mate and produce a third breed overnight. So the logical deduction would be to apply this observation to the fossil record, and suddenly the sudden appearance of what you incorrectly call a new species is not surprising at all. (You know, that incorrect classification in the fossil record that won't affect it one iota).

Wrong, try again.

You seem to be moving the goalposts. I thought we were discussing species?????

Nope, that is your sin, not mine.

Echinoderms is a useless classification. You have never seen a starfish produce offspring with a sea cucumber. You have never seen sea cucumber become new species - merely infraspecific taxa.

Wrong. You are simply emphasizing your ignorance by citing ridiculous examples. What is extremely ironic is that if we observed what you think we need to observe that would actually refute the theory of evolution. You should really try to learn what you are arguing against.

No you don't, you see new infraspecific taxa from the mixing of genes between two subspecies or varieties of the same species. They are quite exciting when one stops ignoring how reproduction actually works.

So is this your new incredibly ignorant song and dance?

Strawman alert:

First we are told we can't use controlled experiments because the rate of change is much higher than would ever be in nature.

Then we are being told that controlled experiments that changed the rate of E coli much higher than would be found in nature is valid.

You sadly do not even know what a strawman is. I am sorry but you keep showing that you have no knowledge at all about what you are taking about.

Let alone the tiny missing fact that we ended up with E coli - just a different infraspecific taxa within the Kind E coli is part of. This of course is left out, because otherwise it would dispute their claims. But I challenge any evolutionist to show me a single experiment in which one species becomes another species - instead of just merely infraspecific taxa?

Wrong, first of E. coli is not just one species. You are getting to hung up on words. You are attempting to play word games and I will simply point out this error of yours when you bring it up. A new species of E. coli evolved in the lab.

Is that what you call ignoring the data and misinterpreting the evidence?

No, that is what you are doing.

One species changing into anything but infraspecific taxa for starters?????

Same old song and dance. When you show that you understand this I will deal with it.

Strawman alert:

Of course he was wrong - he believes in a young earth based upon incorrect translations of the Hebrew word "hayah".

Misuse of the word strawman again. Since you creationists don't have a program that describes your errant beliefs don't expect people to memorize them.

How could he come to anything but the wrong conclusion based upon a faulty premise? Just as you come to the wrong conclusion based upon the faulty premise that in the past, reproduction happened differently than is observed today. Simply because what you observe today doesn't fit your beliefs.

Where did I ever imply that reproduction was different in the past? Now that is a strawman on your side.

So even though you have never seen anything but infraspecific taxa - suddenly the Chimpanzee species gives rise to the human species, instead of the subspecies or variety it would be if evolution were true. So in a mad scramble to prove the natural reproduction process as observed is not how it happens, you force change in E coli rapidly in the lab (even though forced rates of change are not valid) and end up with E coli - exactly what you started with. And this somehow in your convoluted reasoning supports evolution?

Wrong try again. We have seen evolution on the species level and beyond.

But keep singing the same old song and dance. You won't convince anyone since you are merely misusing a term that you do not understand.[/QUOTE]

 

[Atheos canadensis]

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-insights-evolving-triceratops-montana-hell.html

"The Hell Creek Formation contains lower, middle and upper subdivisions. When the team studied Triceratops skulls' morphology and position in the strata, they found that skulls showing only features of T. horridus appeared only in the lower section, while skulls exhibiting only T. prorsus features appeared only in the upper section."

There is no missing graduation. Just the mating of two breeds of the same dinosaurs and the sudden appearance of T. Prorsus in the fossil record. That evolutionists misconstrue this to mean one evolved into another, instead of what we actually observe to happen - is a problem you all have with accepting the evidence.

Nice quote mine. You're being pretty dishonest. You're trying to use that link to support your position that T. prorsus appears suddenly with no gradation in between. But look what happens when we add the sentence that directly follows your excerpt:

"Skulls found in the middle contained a combination of features of both species. The fossil record shows that T. horridus probably evolved into T. prorsus over one to two million years".

Suddenly your dishonesty is revealed in no uncertain terms. Although I suppose you may not have been actively trying to quote mine and just stopped reading as soon as you thought you'd been vindicated.

Again, please justify your assertion T. prorsus appeared suddenly when its traits show up gradually as we move up through the HCF. I'd suggest not trying to quote mine any more.

 

[lifepsyop]

Evolutionary trends in Triceratops from the Hell Creek Formation, Montana
...Specimens referable to the two recognized morphospecies of Triceratops, T. horridus and T. prorsus, are stratigraphically separated within the HCF with the T. prorsus morphology recovered in the upper third of the formation and T. horridus found lower in the formation. Hypotheses that these morphospecies represent sexual or ontogenetic variation within a single species are thus untenable. Stratigraphic placement of specimens appears to reveal ancestor–descendant relationships...
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/28/10245.short

This is actually a good example of imposing evolutionary assumptions onto the data. Apparently, the possibility that these triceratops may be ontological variations was not even considered as a possibility due to the belief that the strata represent millions of years of separation. So what we have here is a classification system that, instead of being based strictly on actual character traits of the animals, is also governed by metaphysical ideas about the history of earth.

This shows that if variations of dog breeds were stratigraphically separated, then there is zero doubt that the evolutionist would conclude that they are different species that had "evolved" new morphology.

So if paleontologists are concluding that stratigraphy represents an absolute signal dictating whether or not something is the same species... and if that assumption is wrong, then how much are they distorting the actual picture of life's diversity?