-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do you believe in the evolution theory?
- Thread starter Followers4christ
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,733
- 52,531
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Didn't you ever play that?
You go to Arabia, find a phone booth, call someone, then whisper to them in Chinese.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,733
- 52,531
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
so, a "mutation" is a misplaced gene?.
this would seem to suggest a "model" or "standard" DNA for that particular species.
how else can you say a gene is "misplaced"?
it's a matter of the record.
eldredge, gould, ayala, they all point to the gaps in the record.
eldredge comes right out and says it in regards to transitional fossils "some would say none".
we only have 3.4% of the primate fossil tree, there aren't enough fossils to come to any type of conclusion, much less "ape to man".
are you familiar with the concept of spandrels?
gould introduced this term in regards to PE.
he had the right idea, but he didn't look close enough.
his (goulds) plan was spandrels was a type of actual bone formation.
i submit that they are more along the lines of biomolecular "construction".
transposons would be the cause of this.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
A mutation isn't necesarily a misplaced gene, although that is one kind of mutation. But we do make generalized standards of the genomes of certain species, our own included, as far as the most common sequences go. In fact, the sum total of the variation between any given human is below 1% of our total genes, so making such a standard isn't exactly ridiculous.
There will probably always be some "gaps" in the fossil record, because not even close to every species that has lived left fossils behind. Fossils require certain conditions to form, and given that, it is actually astounding that we have found so many. Why would we need to find every single one to support evolution anyways, when we already are having trouble figuring out how to label them all?
That 3.4% was pulled out of thin air, we would have to know exactly how many transitions existed before we could even come up with something like that, and how the heck would we figure that out?
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
We have causation covered... natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. These are well established mechanisms of evolutionary change.
No scientist publishes his research without statistical analysis.
Wrong on both counts. Sfs is a scientist (in fact he worked on the Human Genome Project) and in my experience he is honest. He certainly is being honest about statistics. He has published research and so have I. I can tell you straight out, I have never published research without statistical analysis of some kind. How many papers have you published?
Upvote
0
This is disgusting.
SFS has posted links to papers he has contributed to. So he is a scientist.
And I'm very sure to voice the opnion of many here: SFS is one of the most respected mebers on this board.
Upvote
0
No, you don't. A mutation is a change in DNA sequence between parent and offspring. If a transposon jumps around in the genome of an egg or sperm, and that gamete results in a child, then that child will have a different genome in their somatic DNA than that found in either parent. That change will have a 50% chance of being passed to their offspring.
You dislike the conclusions. Not the same thing. If you are going to claim that a statistical analysis is wrong, then you need to show that it is wrong.
Every scientist would say that you are wrong for ignoring all statistical analyses for simply being statistical analyses.
It only shows how poor your judgement is. sfs has many peer reviewed publications.
Dishonesty is ignoring all evidence, as you are doing.
Upvote
0
A mutation is a change in the DNA sequence, whether it is a gene or not a gene. The vast majority of the genome is not made of genes.
"The first “terrestrial” vertebrates retained six to eight digits on each limb (more like a fish paddle than a hand), a persistent tailfin, and a lateral-line system for sensing sound vibrations underwater. The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory—for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by its Past"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," 1997
"Some discoveries in science are exiting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by its Past"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," 1997
"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf
All of those fossils fit the predicted tree. We also have DNA, don't forget.
"What are the arguments in favor of evolution? Let me quickly describe two arguments. (1) The fossil record. Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science. (2) The DNA evidence for evolution. I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
Why couldn't substitutions and indels also be the cause?
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by PsychoSarah
"So just how low is the sampling level of this fossil record, that is said to be the best evidence for evolution? The Nature article cites a prior study that showed only 3.8% of assumed primate fossil species were represented by actually discovered fossils! When modern primates were examined the study showed only 3.4% had been discovered."
"Note that not only are the bottom parts of the tree, including the very base, (or common ancestry) missing, but there are no vertical or horizontal links between any of the actually found (or observed) fossils! Only the 10 solid lines represent found fossils out of the approximately 333 assumed ancestral species. "
The Nature author, in concluding his discussion on primate evolution, notes:
In the face of major gaps in the fossil record, far-reaching interpretation of fragmentary fossil remains can easily lead to misinterpretation of phylogenetic relationships.
Martin, Robert D., Primate origins: plugging the gaps, Nature, Vol. 363, 20 May 1993 , p 223.
That 3.4% was pulled out of thin air, we would have to know exactly how many transitions existed before we could even come up with something like that, and how the heck would we figure that out?
really?
"So just how low is the sampling level of this fossil record, that is said to be the best evidence for evolution? The Nature article cites a prior study that showed only 3.8% of assumed primate fossil species were represented by actually discovered fossils! When modern primates were examined the study showed only 3.4% had been discovered."
"Note that not only are the bottom parts of the tree, including the very base, (or common ancestry) missing, but there are no vertical or horizontal links between any of the actually found (or observed) fossils! Only the 10 solid lines represent found fossils out of the approximately 333 assumed ancestral species. "
The Nature author, in concluding his discussion on primate evolution, notes:
In the face of major gaps in the fossil record, far-reaching interpretation of fragmentary fossil remains can easily lead to misinterpretation of phylogenetic relationships.
Martin, Robert D., Primate origins: plugging the gaps, Nature, Vol. 363, 20 May 1993 , p 223.
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by PsychoSarahThat 3.4% was pulled out of thin air, we would have to know exactly how many transitions existed before we could even come up with something like that, and how the heck would we figure that out?
All of those fossils fit the predicted phylogeny. All of those fossils evidence evolution.
Upvote
0
i meant no disrespect to the man.
i told him i mistrusted statistical correlations and i told him why.
he said i was wrong.
i'm sorry but the man is not correct and he is being dishonest for implying my motives are invalid.
Upvote
0
The paper you just cited on primate fossils uses statistical correlations, and yet you present it as something you trust.
Why is that?
Barbara McClintock's work requires the same statistical correlations as the science you are trying to ignore. Why the double standard?
Upvote
0
no it doesn't.
it states 2 figures. the total number of fossils and the number of found fossils.
there is no statistics involved.
mcclintock won a nobel prize for her work
and to think, all i said was i distrust statistical correlations because correlation does not imply causation.
some well liked scientist said i was wrong and i called him on it.
you know, if that bothers you, then so be it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
How did they determine how many fossil species have not been found? They use statistics to do that.
Also, McClintock's work uses statistics just like everyone in science. You accept that without blinking an eye. However, when someone uses statistics to support a theory you don't like, all of the sudden statistics are unreliable.
Your double standard is really obvious.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
1993?!
do you have any idea how many fossils have been found since then? That article is older than me!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
