It Will Only Get Bigger
This pattern, known as “early high disparity,” turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years.
Early high disparity? And another one of the evolutionists explained that species must be constrained in how much they can change:
Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction.
In their paper they explained that there are few putative macroevolutionary trends or rules that withstand scrutiny. Funny, we’ve been saying that for years. The difference is we don’t carry a theological mandate for evolution.
Now we find such talk in evolution papers. These findings join the thousands of other scientific problems with evolution, slowly eating away at the foundation.
Religion drives science and it matters.
AHA. I knew this a;ready as any observation of fossils shows then complex as can be as soon as can be.
ReplyDeleteIf evolution is not true then there would not be a rising complexity.
Anyways this is based on biological data points and not biological research.
its just looking at pictures and comparing BUT STILL its what should of been known already.
These fossils were deposited together and just show variety from the neighbourhood.
There is no such thing as a uncomplex living thing.
If so then make it out of raw material in the lab my evolutionist friends.
Hey robert, would you like to say that again, and this time in coherent English?
ReplyDelete"In their paper they explained that there are few putative macroevolutionary trends or rules that withstand scrutiny. Funny, we’ve been saying that for years. The difference is we don’t carry a theological mandate for evolution.
ReplyDeleteNow we find such talk in evolution papers."
Is there now hope of a civil conversation amongst evolutionists, IDists, and Creationists? (even in a science classroom?)
"The ignorant babblings of creationists? Ridiculous criticisms of IDs? True they have been making such claims for years, but this time it comes from evolutionists at the University of Bath who performed a massive fossil study."
ReplyDeleteNot a shabby study nor credentials!
ENV was none too impressed with the ad hoc explanations in the fossil study:
DeleteDarwinian Magic: Another Question-Begging Darwinian Explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - July 31, 2013
Excerpt:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/darwinian_magic074961.html
At least the Discovery hack read the original paper. Hunter skimmed the abstract and a layman summary at phys.org.
DeleteFrom the link..
DeleteYou want to be charitable to these authors, but it's challenging. They know full well that they were using Darwinian evolution as filler in the absence of data:
Given that we cannot extrapolate empirical observations without first putting them into at least some kind of explanatory framework, how is this actually a valid criticism?
Before data can be missing, you need a theory by which to extrapolate it as being missing. Otherwise, data tells us nothing, one way or the other, as it's just a bunch of singular observations.
And even then, those observations would be theory laden themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn their paper they explained that there are few putative macroevolutionary trends or rules that withstand scrutiny. Funny, we’ve been saying that for years.
DeleteReferences, please, Dr Hunter. What did you say? When did you say it? Which "trends or rules" did you scrutinize?
Did you read the entire paper, Cornelius, or just skimmed the abstract for quote mines? Enquiring minds want to know.
ReplyDeleteOleg, do you have any actual content to contribute in your comments? Comments on the study? An intelligent criticism perhaps? Is it all a big creationist quote-mining conspiracy? Inquiring minds want to know.
DeleteI might, lifepsy. That's why I was wondering whether our host had read the paper. It would be helpful if he did.
Delete"The difference is we don’t carry a theological mandate for evolution."
ReplyDeleteYour employer certainly has one against evolution, what with that doctrinal statement asserting that "[t]he origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power" and "God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."
But you don't care if evolution is true or not, right?
If you want to see a guy lie, weasel word, and evade, ask Discovery Institute Fellow Cornelius Hunter if he's ever received any money from the DI.
DeleteThorton, Payment for service is a reward for excellence not a scam.
Deletedidymos:
DeleteRight. Will you next grill me about whether my religion allows for perpetual motion machines?
Marcus:
DeleteThe evolutionists' ad hominem criticisms, which they knows are false, are simply a natural extension of the core of evolution.
Evolution is not a positive idea. It's many different sub hypotheses for the origin and diversification of life are unlikely speculations that can be forfeited.
The core of evolution is its religiously-motivated refutation of creation and design. That is what Darwin's book was all about. It is what they were saying before Darwin, and that is what they have been saying ever since Darwin.
This refutation of creation and design naturally extends into several further criticisms, including: creation and design are not legitimate forms of science, and that anyone who deviates from evolution is not legitimate and is bad.
All of the strong arguments for evolution are negative. That is where its strength is.
So moralizing is simply a natural extension of evolutionary thought. And the more you point out evolution's scientific failures, the more they criticize.
The more obvious the absurdities become, the louder and more vociferous the moralizing. Funny how the Wizard of Oz got that so right.
"Evolution is not a positive idea. It's many different sub hypotheses for the origin and diversification of life are unlikely speculations that can be forfeited."
DeleteThat's BS, Cornelius, and you surely know it. Just to name one, prediction of transitional fossil is a positive argument for evolution. Confirmed nicely many times.
Dr. Hunter,
DeleteWith your interesting blog, you have cultivated a nice little tribe of atheist followers. We get the details of the whole creation/evolution debate in one place. Nicely done!
CH:
DeleteYou consistently use the term "evolution" to mean what I consistently term "Darwinism."
I've seen you write about how 'evolution' is a term that lends itself to equivocation, especially with the kind of 'evolution' that is a 'fact': i.e., the fossil record.
Now I don't think that the fossil record is necessarily a record of common descent, or of anything that could truly be termed 'evolution;' nonetheless, I don't think we need to fight that particular fight; let them call 'evolution' a fact, but in the very restricted sense in which it 'may' be true (fossil record).
If you distinguish between 'Darwinism' and 'evolution' (fossil record), this helps pinpoint that our problems today come from those who religiously hold as dogma all that a basically uninformed scientist (in terms of what we now know), Darwin, wrote 150 years ago.
Let me just finish this way:
When I saw this article on phys.org, I said to myself that Darwinism is now officially dead. But, as I look over the articles at phys.org, I say that every day. There's three articles today that point out the problems of Darwinism.
But, to 'true believers' . . .
Maybe they should exhume what's left of Darwin's body and then build a shrine to it a la Russia's Lenin.
Lino,
DeleteThat argument about Darwin is rather silly. Newton and Einstein were too uninformed by today's standards. We don't discard their works on that basis.
CH: The evolutionists' ad hominem criticisms, which they knows are false, are simply a natural extension of the core of evolution.
DeleteI'm having problems parsing that last part. Are you saying we cannot make progress on the origin of your objections unless we experience you admitting or denying holding specific views? But that's the same flawed argument you're making in regards to evolution.
Also, in claiming evolution isn't scientific, is unlikely, lacks evidence that collaborates it, fails as an explanation, etc, this brings into question what you mean by science, evolutionary theory, the role empirical observations play in adopting theories, if theories should be exhaustive, how you calculate the likelihood of a theory, if that's even possible in the first place, etc.
By refusing to answer questions relevant to your own claims and making what appears to be conflicting statements, this doesn't bode well, when you could simply clarify these things up. You don't want to make progress.
In the absence of such clarifications, science is defined as whatever you think scientific community supposedly use to criticizes creationism or ID. So, you're left with a response to evolutionary theory itself: if ID/creationism isn't "science" than evolution isn't "science" either. However, this would be an example of the Tu quoque fallacy.
Furthermore, even if a specific definition of science was being hypocritical, this doesn't mean all evolutionists adhere to that definition, that those that do are not confused about how we make progress and that we shouldn't adopt evolution based on rational criticism based on empirical observations.
IOW, criticism your should be along the lines that theory X of evolution isn't scientific under variant X of empiricism, etc.. Otherwise, this appears to be a knee jerk reaction to failed adoption of creationism and ID by the scientific community.
CH: The core of evolution is its religiously-motivated refutation of creation and design. That is what Darwin's book was all about. It is what they were saying before Darwin, and that is what they have been saying ever since Darwin.
DeleteAgain, I'm still waiting for your answer to the following…
Cornelius, are you saying there can be no distinction between taking someone else's theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of criticism, and actually holding that belief personally as a matter of faith?
If there can be a distinction, what is your criteria and how did you apply it to [x]? Please be specific.
If not, what is it about God that prevents such a distinction from being made?
For example, can no distinction be made because claims about God are merely moment by moment assertions that have no implications about reality of which we can criticize?
Apparently, there must be some reason to exclude this possibility, but you have yet to articulate it. Again, this should be relatively straight forward for you to clear up, yet it still remains an open question. How do you explain this?
CH: This refutation of creation and design naturally extends into several further criticisms, including: creation and design are not legitimate forms of science, and that anyone who deviates from evolution is not legitimate and is bad.
This is the reaction I'm referring to above. If creation and design isn't "science" than neither is "evolution". But you haven't defined "science" as part of your objections, keep presenting straw men of evolution, etc.
CH: All of the strong arguments for evolution are negative. That is where its strength is.
Modus ponens arguments can be reformulated as modus tollens as to not beg the question.
CH: So moralizing is simply a natural extension of evolutionary thought. And the more you point out evolution's scientific failures, the more they criticize.
Denying or destroying ways of correcting errors *is* immoral. And that's what you're implying: no progress can be made by discarding errors regarding the origin of biological features. And it's implied in multiply ways.
- Theories of the origin of biological adoptions cannot become more accurate, explain more phenomena, etc. by discarding errors. That's not progress, but supposedly failure.
- Darwinism, as a process of creating non-explanatory knowledge, cannot make progress by discarding errors in genetic variations.
- Knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from authoritative, supernatural sources, rather than some form of conjecture and criticism.
CH: The more obvious the absurdities become, the louder and more vociferous the moralizing. Funny how the Wizard of Oz got that so right.
Obvious to who and why? See above.
Marcus
DeletePayment for service is a reward for excellence not a scam.
But lying about receiving such payment for service when your religion even has a Commandment "thou shall not bear false witness" is both dishonest and extremely hypocritical.
The problem here is not CH or anyone else believing Creationism over the sciences that support evolution. The problem is the non-stop LYING about the sciences and scientists while pushing those Creationist beliefs.
Can you understand the huge difference?
PaV Lino
DeleteWhen I saw this article on phys.org, I said to myself that Darwinism is now officially dead. But, as I look over the articles at phys.org, I say that every day.
That should tell you something about your pitiful ignorance and misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and its evidence.
But it won't.
Lino:
DeleteIf you distinguish between 'Darwinism' and 'evolution' (fossil record), this helps pinpoint that our problems today come from those who religiously hold as dogma all that a basically uninformed scientist (in terms of what we now know), Darwin, wrote 150 years ago.
Evolutionists often equivocate on evolution, equating it with mere change over time. That way trivial changes such as altered allele frequencies or the fossil record become proof of evolution. Therefore it is a fact that the species arose spontaneously, via random events and natural law (chance and necessity).
Clearly that is yet another fallacious argument. So I don't think it is a good idea to equate "evolution" with "the fossil record" for it just continues the confusion.
I think it is preferable to use the word "evolution," unless otherwise explained, in its colloquial sense (i.e., the species arose naturalistically, "by themselves" via chance + necessity).
And more specifically, the distinction between "Darwinism" and "evolution" should, I think, simply follow the evolutionist's usage (when they are not equivocating). That is, "Darwinism" is evolutionary theory following the broad outlines set forth by Darwin whereas "evolution" is evolutionary theory updated with the myriad epicycles that have been since needed to accommodate the massive theoretical failures that have occurred.
CH: "Evolutionists often equivocate on evolution, equating it with mere change over time. That way trivial changes such as altered allele frequencies or the fossil record become proof of evolution. Therefore it is a fact that the species arose spontaneously, via random events and natural law (chance and necessity)."
DeleteSo archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are trivial? Are they not clear transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds and between fish and tetrapods?
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteI think it is preferable to use the word "evolution," unless otherwise explained, in its colloquial sense (i.e., the species arose naturalistically, "by themselves" via chance + necessity).
That isn't a definition of 'evolution' used by anyone in the scientific community.
So when you bellyache about "Darwinists say evolution is a fact!" you're using your own made up definition and dishonestly equivocating over the actual scientific definition.
Thanks for finally clearing that up. I'll bookmark your last post the next time you trot out the same old lie, which you will.
oleg:
DeleteThat's BS, Cornelius, and you surely know it. Just to name one, prediction of transitional fossil is a positive argument for evolution. Confirmed nicely many times.
No, the lack of transitional fossils never harmed evolution. Evolutionists never dropped the theory, considered dropping the theory, considered that it is not a fact, or even may not be a fact. Transitional fossils have always been forfeitable.
In fact evolutionists used several explanans, including the-dog-ate-my-homework explanation (ie, the fossil record is incomplete), rapid evolution, PE, and macromutations.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteNo, the lack of transitional fossils never harmed evolution. Evolutionists never dropped the theory, considered dropping the theory, considered that it is not a fact, or even may not be a fact. Transitional fossils have always been forfeitable.
CH, you want to give us your explanation for the large number of transitional fossil series science does have?
Didn't think so.
What you say is irrelevant to my question. I didn't ask you whether we have a complete fossil record interpolating between dinosaurs and birds or fish and tetrapods.
DeleteTheory of evolution predicts the existence of transitional forms. How many is a separate question that depends on the speed of evolution, preservation of fossils, looking in the right place etc. The fact, however, remains that transitional fossils have been found. That was a major prediction of Darwin's theory and it has been confirmed in spades.
Creationists with two brain cells to rub together (see above) realize that it is no longer feasible to deny the existence of transitional fossil. You are one of the remaining dinosaurs who do. That's hilarious.
oleg:
DeleteWhat you say is irrelevant to my question.
Try reading it again.
Theory of evolution predicts the existence of transitional forms.
No it doesn't. Read again.
WHAT? Theory of evolution does NOT predict transitional forms? Are you nuts?
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteTheory of evolution predicts the existence of transitional forms.
No it doesn't. Read again.
The Theory of Evolution accepted and used by the scientific community does. FSM only knows what the mangled and tortured version of ToE you pulled out of your butt predicts.
But that really doesn't matter to the scientific community, now does it? Just keep feeding those PRATTs to the Fundies, keep those donations trickling in.
oleg
DeleteWHAT? Theory of evolution does NOT predict transitional forms? Are you nuts?
LOL! Professional shark-jumper Cornelius Hunter strikes again!
Sorry, this is supposed to be science not "let's make up as we go along." If A and ~A are both no problem for a theory, then A is not a prediction of the theory.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteSorry, this is supposed to be science not "let's make up as we go along." If A and ~A are both no problem for a theory, then A is not a prediction of the theory.
LOL! You mean like we can have no theories about weather or meteorology predicting rain because we observe both rain and no rain.
You're really on a roll today CH. One of the funniest Creationists on the web!
CH: "Sorry, this is supposed to be science not "let's make up as we go along." If A and ~A are both no problem for a theory, then A is not a prediction of the theory."
DeleteWhat you say is really silly. Theory of evolution does NOT predict that transitional fossils exist and do not exist. It predicts that they exist. It must be one of your creative reformulations of evolutionary theory that does that.
What you say is really silly. Theory of evolution does NOT predict that transitional fossils exist and do not exist. It predicts that they exist. It must be one of your creative reformulations of evolutionary theory that does that.
DeleteActually it is not silly. Predictions are important in science. In fact, if there is anything that is silly here, it is how evolution fails so badly and then claims theoretical success.
Show us some evidence that theory of evolution does NOT predict transitional forms. LOL
DeleteShow us some evidence that theory of evolution does NOT predict transitional forms. LOL
DeleteI already explained it to you above.
You can split hairs about how many transitional forms we should find. But theory of evolution predicts unequivocally that transitional forms should have existed and should be found as transitional fossils.
DeleteSaying that theory of evolution does not predict transitional forms is denying the obvious. It's like saying that black is white.
Thorton can be over the top sometimes, but he is right today: Cornelius Hunter has jumped the shark.
DeleteYou can split hairs about how many transitional forms we should find. But theory of evolution predicts unequivocally that transitional forms should have existed and should be found as transitional fossils.
DeleteSaying that theory of evolution does not predict transitional forms is denying the obvious. It's like saying that black is white.
No, the number of "transitional forms" is not relevant.
oleg:
DeleteThe lack of transitional fossils never harmed evolution. Evolutionists never dropped the theory, considered dropping the theory, considered that it is not a fact, or even may not be a fact. Transitional fossils have always been forfeitable.
In fact evolutionists used several explanans, including the fossil record is incomplete, rapid evolution, PE, and macromutations.
If A and ~A are both no problem for a theory, then A is not a prediction of the theory.
I can't take you seriously anymore, Cornelius. You are obviously on the other side, but it is possible to respect one's enemies. This puts you somewhat out of the range of respectability.
DeleteTransitional fossils were one of the central predictions of Darwin's theory. He spent quite a bit of time in The Origin discussing that. He was himself very worried about the scarcity of transitional fossil in his time.
We now have quite a few transitional fossils. Denying that theory of evolution predicted their existence in the first place is a lie that no self-respecting creationist should perpetrate.
I suggest that you put away the keyboard, sleep on it for a day, then come back and issue a retraction.
DeleteI can't take you seriously anymore, Cornelius. You are obviously on the other side, but it is possible to respect one's enemies. This puts you somewhat out of the range of respectability.
DeleteTransitional fossils were one of the central predictions of Darwin's theory. He spent quite a bit of time in The Origin discussing that. He was himself very worried about the scarcity of transitional fossil in his time.
We now have quite a few transitional fossils. Denying that theory of evolution predicted their existence in the first place is a lie that no self-respecting creationist should perpetrate.
Well let's start at the other end and work backwards. Do you agree that rapid evolution or evolution by macromutation would not require transitional forms?
I am not going to play your silly game, Cornelius. You have just stated that theory of evolution does not predict transitional fossils. This is a bald-faced lie. You must retract it before you can be taken seriously.
DeleteI am not going to play your silly game, Cornelius. You have just stated that theory of evolution does not predict transitional fossils. This is a bald-faced lie. You must retract it before you can be taken seriously.
DeleteIt's actually not a silly game. For I think it is clear that the explanations of rapid evolution or evolution by macromutation do not require transitional forms. Evolutionists have used this type of explanation in the past. That demonstrates that these explanations are part of the theory. In other words, these are accessible to the theory. That means that any gaps that did, or do, exist are not theoretical problems for evolution. Note that the number of transitional forms, or the number of gaps, currently or in the past, is not relevant here. They could be few or they could be many. The point is that evolution does not predict transitional fossils because the lack of such fossils is no problem for evolution. This can only be said to be a prediction in a soft sense, where the prediction is held tentatively, but if it fails it is not a significant problem, as evolutionists can always draw upon some explanan. This is important from a theory evaluation perspective because it limits the evidential significance of any supposed transitional forms that are discovered.
The mind boggles at these mental contortions.
DeleteThe mind boggles at these mental contortions.
DeleteThese are not really mental contortions. Think of it this way. Imagine if a sequence of horse-like fossils were discovered that demonstrated how horses evolved. And imagine if creationists had an explanation for the sequence (e.g., all those horse-like species belonged to the same kind).
Then years later, it is discovered that the horse sequence didn't actually work as evolutionists had envisioned, and that the different fossil species did not actually evolve, one into the other.
Now imagine that the creationists celebrated and said it was a successful prediction, a big victory and powerful evidence for their theory.
Clearly that would be a fallacy. For them to say it was a successful prediction would be false because they accommodated just fine the opposite evidence. They would never have made that prediction, in any meaningful sense.
Is that now clear to you?
This is an imaginary theory of evolution. I was talking about the real one.
DeleteBut I repeat myself.
oleg
DeleteThe mind boggles at these mental contortions.
That's the real entertainment value here.
It's not the incredibly dumb things CH claims about science that are the draw, although they are pretty funny.
It's the amazing mental gyrations and butchering of logic he does to try and justify the stupid claims to his Creationist groupies.
Speaking of those groupies, I wonder what they think of this latest Hunter train wreck. How about it guys, anyone else out there think the real Theory of Evolution doesn't predict transitional forms?
Hunter:
DeleteAnd imagine if creationists had an explanation for the sequence (e.g., all those horse-like species belonged to the same kind).
Hilarious! Common descent!
It has not escaped my notice that Hunter has, following his usual MO, created a distraction (transitional forms) from his misunderstanding of the paper he mangled in the OP.
DeleteTell us about the distinction between disparity and diversity, CH, and how you've been on top of that all these years.
Tell us about the dozens of references in the paper where the same point (with less exhaustive data) was made as that of the authors: early high disparity, as in the Cambrian, is more the rule than the exception.
So, early disparity is one of those "putative macroevolutionary trends or rules that withstand[s] scrutiny"! And CH thought that the authors were saying that there were no such rules, just as he has been saying all these years. (Or might not have said, since he hasn't backed up that claim.)
CH:
DeleteI admit that Darwinists misunderstand the fossil record, and don't view it critically enough; but, I feel the more forcible of arguments lie elsewhere.
Nonetheless, your reply clarifies what I've seen as implicit in your other remarks about 'evolution,' and so makes clear the position you choose to take. I respect it.
CH: This can only be said to be a prediction in a soft sense, where the prediction is held tentatively, but if it fails it is not a significant problem, as evolutionists can always draw upon some explanan. This is important from a theory evaluation perspective because it limits the evidential significance of any supposed transitional forms that are discovered.
DeleteWith the exception of instrumentalist theories, such as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, predictions of scientific theories are based on explanations of how the world works. This includes our explanations of how and when fossils form (and when they would not), their distribution, how we discover them, etc., along with the rest of our current best, explanations in other fields.
It's in this sense there are logical consequences for the current state of the system, including the fossil record, which we can empirically test by taking those theories serious, as if they were true in reality, and that all observations should conform to them.
On the other hand, prophecy is merely an assertion of what will or will not occur. And, supposedly, it's based on some infallible source that can take into account an infinite number of parallel, yet unrelated events, that could change the outcome. This includes fossils we have yet discovered. As such, if it's not observed, it's false.
Since science doesn't claim to have this kind of knowledge, it's unclear why this sort of expectation is reasonable or even rational.
What you're describing is naïve falsification.
From the Wikpeda entry on falsification...
In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements.
cornelius said:
Delete"The core of evolution is its religiously-motivated refutation of creation and design."
With that statement and others cornelius again demonstrates vividly that he doesn't know the difference between evolution (the process/result) and evolutionary THEORY.
How can someone who allegedly has a Ph.D in biophysics be so ignorant and illiterate?
And by the way, cornelius, evolutionary THEORY is NOT "religiously-motivated". The "core" of evolutionary THEORY is based on scientific studies of reality. That evolutionary THEORY also happens to help show how ridiculous christianity and other religions are is just a bonus.
And what's wrong with using scientific findings to argue against ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales?
Thorton:"But lying about receiving such payment for service when your religion even has a Commandment "thou shall not bear false witness" is both dishonest and extremely hypocritical."
DeleteIt's not incumbent upon Dr. Hunter to tell us if he is compensated for working with the Discovery Institute at any level. Not saying one way or the other is not a lie. Personally, I hope he is paid well for services rendered.
Thorton:"The problem here is not CH or anyone else believing Creationism over the sciences that support evolution. The problem is the non-stop LYING about the sciences and scientists while pushing those Creationist beliefs."
He has a different interpretation of the facts. He has the courage to put his thoughts on the web with his real name behind them. I am grateful for that.
Calling him a liar is just childish and silly, but i have the lowest set of expectations for atheist's behaviors. I am encouraged that you have a framework to decide what is good and bad. Some progress is being made. Or did you just borrow from the Judeo/Christian Bible in order to snipe Dr. Hunter?
marcus, first of all, no one has to "borrow" anything from the bible to be able to determine what is good or bad. Do you actually believe that no one ever was or can ever be able to determine good or bad unless they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of 'God'?
Delete50,000, 25,000, or 10,000 years ago there were people but there was no bible. How did those people determine the difference between good and bad? Did they only do bad things?
There are lots of people alive right now that have never seen or read a bible. How do those people determine the difference between good and bad? And which bible and version/interpretation of it is the right one?
There were/are lots or people who did/do read the bible and did or do believe that it's the inerrant word of 'God' but they still did or do bad things. If the word of 'God' in the bible is so revealing and authoritative, how can that happen?
And one more question for now:
Are slavery, rape, human and animal sacrifices, kidnapping, deadly plagues, genocide, and ecocide good or bad? According to the bible your so-called god commits, condones, and/or commands all those things and more.
cornelius said:
Delete"For I think it is clear that the explanations of rapid evolution or evolution by macromutation do not require transitional forms."
To be clear, are you claiming that, for example, fish can rapidly evolve (like in a single generation) and become birds, without transitional forms?
"Evolutionists have used this type of explanation in the past."
References please.
"That demonstrates that these explanations are part of the theory. In other words, these are accessible to the theory."
First, provide the references, and then we can see if "these explanations" are worded and used in the way that you're claiming.
Oh, and you still haven't stated your definition of "evolution".
Alas Cornelius,
DeleteCan you not now see the nitwits that you make run around too free on your blog? Even a child would have understood what you were saying.
What good is it to have posters who don't even represent the best the other sides has to offer?
Its all so simple but the rif raff cannot grasp common sense. If a prediction is central to a thesis then it should not be able to survive without the prediction proving itself out. If it can survive without it then its not a prediction central to the thesis.
Darwinists as you have rightfully pointed out would not even dream of abandoning their theory based on a lack of transitional fossils. Even if the ones they CLAIM are transitional (under an assortment of definitions) were to be found otherwise would the merry crew come on and say yes their theory had been invalidated? Of course not.
That was your point but if you know anything about the children brigade you have on here its that they will hiss and laugh and contort for months because they can't understand the point not because the point has no validity.
Sorry to say but your comment section here as you presently have it is more like a mud pen than it is any respectful adult conversation place and I cannot entirely put it all at their feet. I know one of them has been banned everywhere else not for disagreeing but being a child. When you give unfettered unearned access with no standards of how people MUST communicate you put the sign up to the Internet to send its worse.
Its better to read Coyne's comment section than here. They are light years ahead of this crew.
"He has a different interpretation of the facts. He has the courage to put his thoughts on the web with his real name behind them. I am grateful for that.
DeleteCalling him a liar is just childish and silly, but i have the lowest set of expectations for atheist's behaviors."
Nor should you particularly when they are kids. But I cannot be bothered as you do in defending Cornelius. He's allowed this space to be an anything goes zone. Call anyone stupid, any kind of childish rants, name calling, having children running around calling you a liar when you never have. this has nothing to do anymore with allowing disagreement to be voiced its about having some decorum and not making others turn your blog into a playpen. If you were getting some intelligent reasoned debates that would be fine but theres little of that and its CH's fault. if he doesn't care about having a good environment then he should just lock down comments all together because this rabble reflects poorly on the entires site.
Elijah,
DeleteIf you were getting some intelligent reasoned debates that would be fine but theres little of that and its CH's fault. if he doesn't care about having a good environment then he should just lock down comments all together because this rabble reflects poorly on the entires site.
Vote with your feet, or make an intelligent reasoned point yourself.
CH: The difference is we don’t carry a theological mandate for evolution.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like you have a theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural authoritative sources, right?
I've only directly asked you this question, what, at least a dozen times?
Do you see refusing to even acknowledge the question an effective strategy?
Then again, it's not like you need to convince your target audience of this commitment via argument. IOW, explicitly disclosing this commitment would only reveal how parochial your objection is and open it criticism which isn't necessary to meet your objective: denying that we can and have made progress.
Once again, the evidence just won't cooperate with the darwinian myth. :-)
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for your explanation as to why your Magic Designer made dozens of different variations of flagella, and dozens of different variations of eyes.
DeleteSeems like the evidence really won't cooperate with ID-Creationist blithering.
Oleg:
ReplyDeleteThat argument about Darwin is rather silly. Newton and Einstein were too uninformed by today's standards. We don't discard their works on that basis.
Have you ever fallen down?
Have you ever seen a transitional fossil series?
Heh. You should concede that your argument was wrong before moving to another one.
DeleteThe answer to both questions is yes. For the second one, see this: Evolution of cetaceans.
And now that I have answered your questions, how about answering mine? What do you think of Hunter's rather unorthodox (let's put it that way) claim that theory of evolution did not predict transitional forms?
PaV Lino
DeleteHave you ever seen a transitional fossil series?
I have PaV. The Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology has quite a few nice ones in its collections.
THorton:
DeleteWe can always rely on you to embarass yourself:
Here's the first sentences from the first section in your link to the "collections":
The collection represents a spectrum from the earliest known vertebrates to late Tertiary teleosts. The collection was established by Louis Agassiz who brought with him considerable European material initially obtained for the Natural History Collections of Harvard College.
Louis Aggasiz' collection! You know, the guy who was completely opposed to Darwinian theory. And yet you want to use his fossils to defend Darwin's theory? Wow!
And, of course, this isn't a "transtional fossil series," it's a collection that "represents a spectrum from the earliest known vertebrates to late Tertiary teleosts."
We know life forms changed. And we know that Darwinian "intermediates" are absent. This doesn't change things one iota.
Again, point out a transitional fossil series. (not just a fossil series!)
Lino, why does it matter who discovered the fossils? As long as they show interpolation between distant groups, they are transitional fossils, whether they were discovered by a creationist or evolutionist.
DeleteTo drive the point home, cosmic microwave background radiation was not discovered by the fans of the Big Bang. It is nonetheless evidence for it.
Or take the Poisson spot. Even though its existence was pointed out by an opponent of the wave theory of light, it served as one of the earliest confirmations for that theory.
DeleteYou ought to put more thought into your arguments. They are full of holes big enough for a truck.
Oleg:
DeleteDarwinin's OoS has one diagram. Darwin tells us that this bush--it's not a tree--represents some specie/s giving rise to 'genera'. Now the Cetaceans are an 'order.' So, we would have to have one 'bush' from species to genera, another 'bush' from genera to family, and another 'bush' from family to 'order'. That's 3 'bushes'. Where are the transitional fossils--i.e., the 'intermediates'?
The putative Cetacean transitions are just that: putative. They're speculative. Show us the 'intermediates,' and then they're no longer speculative.
So, again, have you seen a transitional fossil series?
If 'intermediates' existed, then no one would doubt Darwin.
You've fallen down in your effort to defend the man.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLino: "The putative Cetacean transitions are just that: putative. They're speculative. Show us the 'intermediates,' and then they're no longer speculative."
DeleteThat is the standard creationist response: every transitional form turns one gap into two. LOL.
What are those forms if not intermediates? You know, between ungulates and cetaceans?
Oleg:
DeleteLino, why does it matter who discovered the fossils?
You don't know who Louis Aggasiz was.
He was the foremost paleontologist of his time. His views mattered.
He wrote a critique of Darwinian theory. He understood what Darwin was suggesting. Now, if he understood Darwin, and the fossils he had in his possession validated Darwin's hypothesis, then why would he have critiqued it and thought it wrong?
Now there's more. Both Aggasiz and Darwin formulated a theory as to how a particular geologic formation came about. Aggasiz proposed melting glaciers as the cause; Darwin proposed changing ocean levels. Aggasiz was right. Darwin wrong.
Do you see a pattern here? I do.
Aggasiz' opinion matters.
As long as they show interpolation between distant groups, they are transitional fossils, whether they were discovered by a creationist or evolutionist.
Sorry, but that's not so. Transitional fossils need to appear in a series wherein one sees minor phenotypic changes adding accumalatively to give rise, finally, to a dramatic phenotypic change.
Why don't you do a search for "transition' or 'transitional' on the webpage THorton linked to. You'll find nothing. They're "collections" of fossils: you know, different kinds of fish, like having different kinds of fish in the ocean, or different kinds of fish in an aquarium. Same basic body-plan. No transitions. We need 'intermediates.'
Gravity we can feel. Intermediates? Well, like all of Darwinism, all we have is some excuse as to why we DON'T SEE them.
Find some intermediates and impress me that way. Until such time . . . .
Lino: "Aggasiz' opinion matters."
DeleteAgassiz's opinion has no influence on what the fossils discovered by him tell us. That simple point seems to have eluded you.
Lino: "Sorry, but that's not so. Transitional fossils need to appear in a series wherein one sees minor phenotypic changes adding accumalatively to give rise, finally, to a dramatic phenotypic change."
DeleteYou will have to wait a while before we discover a continuous series.That's the nature of experimental science: evidence for a hypothesis is tenuous at first, but it grows stronger with time.
The fossils we currently show features intermediate between distant groups. In the case of ungulates to cetaceans, there are quite a few intermediate forms. What do you have against them, exactly?
So, pav-lino, you expect science to provide fossil series that show the atom by atom transition of every species that has ever lived. Otherwise, 'God-did-it!', right?
DeleteThe thing is, even if that could be shown you IDiotic god pushers would still claim that your chosen sky daddy designed, created, and directly caused the atom by atom transitions.
It doesn't matter what science finds because you thumpers will continue to believe in and push your ridiculous, impossible fairy tales. You have a mental deficiency that is a lot like that of an alcoholic. You need a crutch, because you can't handle reality.
PaV Lino
DeleteYou don't know who Louis Aggasiz was.
Aggasiz' opinion matters.
It's spelled Agassiz you nitwit.
Agassiz has been dead for 140 years. His opinions formed with the knowledge he had in the mid 19th century don't matter much to science these days PaV. But I suppose like all willfully ignorant Creationists you don't know of any scientific discoveries since the mid 1800's.
Well, like all of Darwinism, all we have is some excuse as to why we DON'T SEE them.
You don't see them because you keep your head lodged firmly up your ass PaV. The rest of us see them just fine.
Here is a description and photo from someone at PT who visited the Harvard museum.
Equus transitional series
"An incorrect claim frequently made by creationists is that there aren’t transitional fossils predicted by evolution [see Creationist Claim CC200]. Au contraire! I’m standing next to a beautiful transitional sequence of horse fossils that neatly disprove this false assertion. The large horse behind me is a 3 million year old Equus simplicidens from the Pliocene, which is very similar to the modern horse. To the left is a smaller horse, a 17 million year old Parahippus from the Miocene, and to the far left is an even smaller horse, a 30 million year old Mesohippus from the Oligocene. I’m sorry that poor Mesohippus is cut off—these displays are so large that it’s difficult to capture it all. You must visit to see this sequence of transitional fossils for yourselves."
link
What were you saying PaV you willfully ignorant idiot?
oleg:
DeleteWhat are those forms if not intermediates?
You tell me. Did each of those forms appear out of nowhere? Probably. Were there 'intermediates'? Probably not.
Does this say anything about the truth of Darwinism? Yes. That's it's probably wrong since no 'intermediates' are there.
Let's all remember that Darwin, in true liberal fashion, explains away the absence of 'intermediates': i.e., he tells us why we DON'T SEE them.
That's what liberals do: they can't handle the truth, so they reinvent reality. Then when it's pointed out to them that what they say is true is not to be found they say things like: "Well, this has happened for the last fifty years, but people simply didn't talk about it." IOW, there's no proof. But, in the mind of the liberal, this constitutes no proof at all. God help us.
Lino,
DeleteJust by seeing one of these forms you can't tell whether they "appeared out of nowhere" or not. But that's beside the point.
The point is (read carefully): Theory of evolution posits that living organisms share common ancestry. Forms that look different (birds and lizards, whales and non-aquatic mammals etc.) had common ancestors. The evolutionary hypothesis suggests that these different forms developed gradually from a common ancestor. Therefore we should expect to find fossils that interpolate between forms that are currently far apart.
For example, if whales developed from non-aquatic mammals, we should expect to find fossils interpolating between the two groups. That's a prediction of evolutionary theory. We don't see such intermediate creatures today, but they should have existed in the past.
Lo and behold, we do find fossils interpolating between ungulates and whales. A prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed. You can complain that it is not a continuous set of fossils, but that's beside the point. The point is that we have found animals that are in-between. Get it?
THorton:
ReplyDeleteLino:
When I saw this article on phys.org, I said to myself that Darwinism is now officially dead. But, as I look over the articles at phys.org, I say that every day.
THorton:
That should tell you something about your pitiful ignorance and misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and its evidence.
But it won't.
So a study that refutes basic Darwinian expectations, and that is in full agreement with the contrary ID position concerning the Cambrian explosion, shows my "pitiful ignorance and misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and its evidence."
Darwin was guilty of errors in thinking. You're guilty of willful blindness.
Pav Lino
DeleteSo a study that refutes basic Darwinian expectations, and that is in full agreement with the contrary ID position concerning the Cambrian explosion, shows my "pitiful ignorance and misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and its evidence."
Your knee-jerk response shows exactly that. The study doesn't refute "basic Darwinian expectations". The study merely shows that when clades first colonize open ecological niches there is a greater diversification which then tapers off as the niches are filled. Doesn't say anything against about evolutionary theory in the least, and it certainly doesn't support IDiot Design which makes no predictions either way.
But you uncritically swallowed the DI's nonsense like you always do with zero attempt to read or understand the actual research.
That's why you'll always stay a clueless ignoramus PaV.
pav-lino said:
Delete"So a study that refutes basic Darwinian expectations, and that is in full agreement with the contrary ID position concerning the Cambrian explosion...."
So when you think that one study allows a place for your ridiculous religious fairy tales (even if it doesn't), that study must be absolutely correct and cast in stone for all time, "Darwinian expectations" are refuted and of course science is a glorious thing, but when thousands of studies support evolutionary theory and do not allow a place for your religious fairy tales, all of those studies are wrong, wrong, wrong, and science is bad, evil, and blasphemous.
And what the hell are "basic Darwinian expectations"? Are you god pushers ever going to stop beating Darwin's corpse and join the 21st century?
----------------
I was just thinking about your claim that the study "is in full agreement with the contrary ID position concerning the Cambrian explosion...".
Will you please copy and paste the parts of that paper that say that your chosen designer-creator-god, yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels, designed and created the so-called Cambrian explosion at some point during the six days of creation or at some later point? You see, to be "in full agreement with the contrary ID position concerning the Cambrian explosion" the paper would have to say that since that is the actual ID position.
the whole truth:
DeleteYou're a million miles away from the truth. This study is just one of hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, that keep building up day after day.
Yesterday there was a phys.org article on how the brain-power needed for flight was present before anything flew. This completely negates Darwinian expectations (predictions, if you like). Every day there is study after study that finds results which are inconsistent with what Darwinism would predict. (They are then either pushed to the one-side, or some kind of weird hyothesis--usually including a new word that is invented to alleviate the self-evident problem--is concocted. IOW, it's more "epicycles" concocted to support the "Ptolemaic" view of biology. You guys are still in the 15th Century.
So, you see, the biggest "fairy tale" ever told is Darwinism.
[There are known miracles that have taken place--and only a fool would deny this--while there is not one known macro-evolutionary event ever documented. But why should any of this matter? Right?]
And when are you Darwin-worshippers going to give up the ghost of Darwin and enter into 21st century science?
THorton:
DeleteDo you have any critical faculties at all?
I wonder.
The study merely shows that when clades first colonize open ecological niches there is a greater diversification which then tapers off as the niches are filled.
Yes, this is true. And, of course, this is EXACTLY what Darwin DID NOT EXPECT!!!
He expected 'gradual' change, and his solution to so many body-plans being present in the Cambrian was that life had evolved an equal of time 'before' the Cambrian as it had 'after.'
Sorry. He's wrong. You're wrong. He has an excuse. You don't. Try actually thinking about this stuff in a truthful manner. It will help.
And, BTW, do you have Alzheimer's?
Don't you remember this quote from the paper that CH used above:
This pattern, known as “early high disparity,” turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of EVOLUTION [my caps] on its head.
And you have the temerity to write:
Doesn't say anything against about evolutionary theory in the least, and it certainly doesn't support IDiot Design which makes no predictions either way.
So it turn's Darwinian V-shaped cones "on their heads" and for you, brilliant scientist and Darwinian defender that you are, this "[d]oesn't say anything against about evolutionary theory in the least."
Wow.
Lino
DeleteYesterday there was a phys.org article on how the brain-power needed for flight was present before anything flew. This completely negates Darwinian expectations (predictions,
Why did the designer design the brain power to fly before he designed flight? Does this negate design?
pav-lino, let's look at some "truth":
DeleteYou keep bringing up something you call "Darwinism" and "Darwinian expectations", and you said "And, of course, this is EXACTLY what Darwin DID NOT EXPECT!!!", and you drooled something about "...results which are inconsistent with what Darwinism would predict.", but you also said:
"And when are you Darwin-worshippers going to give up the ghost of Darwin and enter into 21st century science?"
You IDiotic god pushers are the ones who are thoroughly and hatefully obsessed with Darwin. I seriously doubt that anyone 'worships' Darwin, and anyone with a clue realizes that modern evolutionary theory is much more elaborate than what Darwin put forth. Yeah, Darwin gets credit for what he did but that's not worship.
And speaking of 21st century science, will you show how it verifies your claim that "There are known miracles that have taken place--and only a fool would deny"?
While you're at it, please explain how the bronze age religious fairy tales you believe in and push are more scientific than the 15th century view of biology, let alone the 21st century view of biology.
You also said:
"...while there is not one known macro-evolutionary event ever documented."
What is your definition of a "macro-evolutionary event"?
I'm also looking forward to your answer to velikovskys' question above.
PaV Lino
DeleteYes, this is true. And, of course, this is EXACTLY what Darwin DID NOT EXPECT!!!
PaV you crack-head moron, science has come a long way in the 150+ years since OOS was published. Trying to discredit modern evolutionary theory by attacking something Darwin himself may have believed is about as stupid as you can get.
You never met a bit of Creationist propaganda idiocy you didn't embrace, have you PaV?
For those not terminally stupid like PaV lino, the Don Lisdsay archive has a nice web page with many examples of transitional fossil series.
DeleteSmooth Change in the Fossil Record
Exactly the thing that idiot Creationist PaV Lino says doesn't exist.
oleg:
DeleteWhy did the designer design the brain power to fly before he designed flight? Does this negate design?
How do we know that those dinosaurs didn't actually fly?
There isn't certain knowledge of any of this; just educated guesses.
And, of course, this is what constitutes so much of science these days: ignorance passing itself off as knowledge.
We need to know the limits of our knowledge.
the whole truth:
Delete(1) You worship Darwin's 'materialism'. You believe in "no-god".
(2) Look up the Miracle of the Sun. How did the ground and the clothes people we're wearing dry up?
(3) neo-Darwinism is the result of Darwinism having to confront the challenges of Mendelian genetics: that's all. It elaborates Darwinian thought (theory) in a population genetic sort of way. Take away Darwin, and you have no neo-Darwinism. If you have no neo-Darwinism, then you have no intellectually consistent argument for NS. That leaves the Neutral Theory and such, but this then becomes an entirely different argument, and we're left with going back to square one and beginning again.
So to try and distance yourself from Darwin (are you listening Tommy) while at the same time trying to say that there's such a thing as 'evolutionary theory' is really to be disingenuous.
THorton:
DeleteDo you tire of embarrassing yourself?
For those not terminally stupid like PaV lino, the Don Lisdsay archive has a nice web page with many examples of transitional fossil series.
And when we look at the website, what do we see?
First figure: Here's how the label reads: "A single species of snail."
If we expand it, we read: "If there had been gaps in the fossil sequence, we would have thought that these were fossils from several different species." But there weren't "gaps," and so, different as the morpholgies appear, it's ONE single species.
You embarrassed enough, Tom?
Second Figure: From expanded view:
"That is why the shells at the top are the species Eocoelia sulcata, but the shells at the bottom are the species Eocoelia hemisphaerica."
Wonderful. After 10 million years, the brachiopod went from one phenotype to another. Sounds like microevolution, something that is accepted by almost all IDists. This has nothing to do with transitions.
And so it goes.
Misinformation. Ignorance parading as knowledge. You ought to be embarrassed THorton.
PaV Lino
DeleteWonderful. After 10 million years, the brachiopod went from one phenotype to another. Sounds like microevolution, something that is accepted by almost all IDists. This has nothing to do with transitions.
LOL! So changing from one morphology to another distinctly different one over 10 million years isn't a transition.
See PaV, I told you you'd be too stupid to understand the examples given.
I know, that's not a hard prediction given your long history of scientific ignorance and stupidity. At least you're consistent.
pav-lino.
Delete(1) I don't worship anything or anyone.
(2) I looked up the so-called "Miracle of the Sun". Thanks for the laughs!
(3) Meh
I'm not trying to "distance" myself from Darwin. I'm sure that this is extremely difficult for you to understand but I do not see Darwin or anyone/anything else as an absolute, infallible authority.
I will give credit where credit is due to Darwin, but since I live in the 21st century I'm much more concerned with what the current state of evolutionary theory is. You bronze age god pushers should stop obsessing about Darwin and other long dead (or imaginary) people and think about joining the 21st century one of these days.
If you thumpers actually care about finding out what makes everything tick, why don't you support science in every way you can? If every god pusher on Earth, or even just here in the USA, were to spend as much money and time practicing/pushing science as they do practicing/pushing religious fairy tales, just think of what could be accomplished scientifically in MUCH less time than it's going to take because of the resistance from you god zombies.
Of course you religious zealots believe that you already know all the answers you need to know and your minds are closed to the possibility that your dogma is wrong. You're not only afraid that natural processes/events are all there is but you're just as afraid that even IF a designer-creator exists it isn't anything like the one(s) you've chosen to believe in, worship, and push. You want science to stop looking for real answers so that you can convince yourselves that your fairy tale beliefs are true.
If I were presented with convincing scientific evidence of a particular designer-creator of any kind/type/form I would accept it virtually immediately. Would you? Would you immediately (or ever) discard your current religious beliefs if it were found that there is a designer-creator but that it's NOT your chosen, so-called god? Would you accept it if the discovered designer-creator turned out to be a 10,000 headed, 20,000 armed, 3 legged, squishy, slimy, mouse sized, purple and green blob of hermaphroditic goo named Gertrude that creates universes by farting them out of its 99 billion excretory orifices? I would, if there were convincing scientific evidence of it.
the whole truth:
DeleteI looked up the so-called "Miracle of the Sun". Thanks for the laughs!
And earlier I wrote:
"There are known miracles that have taken place--and only a fool would deny"?
Consider yourself a fool.
If I were presented with convincing scientific evidence of a particular designer-creator of any kind/type/form I would accept it virtually immediately.
You have proof: it's found in the logical heirarchies present in the genome, to say nothing of the genetic code itself.
You're just a materialist. And, if you haven't already noticed, it's an "ism," just like Catholicism.
Darwinism functions like a religion; not like a science.
@THorton:
DeleteYour buffoonery continues. Do you ever get embarrassed at the inane mistakes you make?
LOL! So changing from one morphology to another distinctly different one over 10 million years isn't a transition.
See PaV, I told you you'd be too stupid to understand the examples given.
Go here, and look at the definition of a 'transitional fossil' given by UCBerkeley.
Here it is:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.
You give us, via Hundley, TWO species: "Eocoelia sulcata" and "Eocoelia hemisphaerica."
Which is the descendant? Which is the ancestor? Which is the intermediate?
Duhhhhh! You need at least THREE species to have a "transitional fossil."
But, you're just so smart . . . .
PaV Lino
DeleteYou give us, via Hundley, TWO species: "Eocoelia sulcata" and "Eocoelia hemisphaerica."
Which is the descendant? Which is the ancestor? Which is the intermediate?
Duhhhhh! You need at least THREE species to have a "transitional fossil."
But, you're just so smart . . . .
PaV you just may be the dumbest most ill informed Creationist moron on the entire planet. From the description of the transitionals:
"Technical Details
Eocoelia is a small brachiopod found in lower Silurian rocks, specifically the Upper Llandovery and lower Wenlock. The animal didn't fossilize, but its shell is found world-wide, including Britain, Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Siberia, Norway, and South America. In several of these locations, a succession of 4 species has been recognized. That succession, shown in the diagram, is found consistently over all of North America and Europe.
The names of the 2 species of the endpoints were provided. The others are in the papers that were referenced. THERE WERE 4 TOTAL SPECIES RECOGNIZED YOU MORON.
Also from the technical description
" As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about ten million years.
the shells at the top are the species Eocoelia sulcata, but the shells at the bottom are the species Eocoelia hemisphaerica. "
So all your answers were right there but as always you were too damn lazy to read and educate yourself.
Damn but you're a dumb one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteIs the transition from Eocoelia hemisphaerica to E. sulcata an example of micro-evolution or macro-evolution?
Hey PaV, is FOUR more than or less than TWO?
THorton:
DeleteFirst, is the change from Eocoelia hemisphaerica micro-evolution, or macro-evolution?
Second, from Handley's website which you use as providing evidence for 'transitional fossils', we read:
"A Smooth Fossil Transition: single celled Radiolarian"
And, A Radiolarian is a single-celled plankton. The diagram shows a new and larger species, Eucyrtidium matuyamai, slowly branching off from the species Eucyrtidium calvertense. Pictures of both species are shown on the right hand side, greatly enlarged.
"Both species." That's TWO species, not THREE.
And this is right below an example entitled:
"A Tree Dweller Becomes Two."
And let's not forget the very FIRST example on Handley's webpage. It's entitled: A Pliocene Snail, [As in the singular] where we read:
If there had been gaps in the fossil sequence, we would have thought that these were fossils from several different species. [But, no, they're from one species.]
You link to these pages thinking you've proven something, and you've proven nothing. You just simply embarrass yourself.
Here's some more:
"A Strangely Spherical Plankton":
followed by:
This page shows the common ancestry of two modern species of foram.
You see: Smooth Transitions ISN'T Transitional Fossils. Micro-evolution is not macro-evolution.
THorton:
DeleteWhy don't you just admit that you were wrong in pointing to 'smooth transitions' as being 'transitional fossils.'
If you can't admit that, then you can admit nothing.
Here's U.C. Berkeley's defintion of "macroevolution."
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
THorton:
If you have evidence of one species transitioning to another species which the examples on the page show then you've got macroevolution.
Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.
PaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteWhy don't you just admit that you were wrong in pointing to 'smooth transitions' as being 'transitional fossils.'
Because I wasn't wrong. Not my problem you're too stupid to know that FOUR is more than TWO, and that the fossils that make up the smooth transition from one species to another are transitional fossils.
What is macroevolution?
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels."
Confusions over macroevolution
"The meaning modern authors give to the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is often confusing, and varies according to what it is they are discussing.
Science is not always consistent in its use of terms; this is the source of much confusion. Sometimes this is carelessness, and sometimes this is because of the way in which terms are developed over time. When biologists and paleontologists talk about macroevolution in the sense of "large-scale" evolution, they are strictly speaking meaning only a part of the phenomena the term covers, but it is the most interesting part for those specialists. That is, they are talking about the patterns of well-above-species-level evolution "
You're a willfully ignorant moron PaV, and you'll always be a willfully ignorant moron. Instead of looking at the evidence and trying to understand the concepts you spend all your time looking for stupid semantic arguments to prop up your ignorant Creationist claims.
That's why you stay the dumbest Creationists on the planet.
THorton:
DeleteAs is usual with liberals, when describing their opponents, they are, in reality, describing themselves: as in . . .
You're a willfully ignorant moron THorton, and you'll always be a willfully ignorant moron. Instead of looking at the evidence and trying to understand the concepts you spend all your time looking for stupid semantic arguments to prop up your ignorant Evolutionist claims.
BTW, my definition, from U.C. Berkeley did not contain the word "at". Yours, from the awfully neutral website, TalkOrigins, did. Maybe the people over there at TO can take an online class in evolution from UCB.
PaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteBTW, my definition, from U.C. Berkeley did not contain the word "at". Yours, from the awfully neutral website, TalkOrigins, did.
I see you were again to lazy to read the explanation of why macroevolution is sometimes described at and above species level and sometimes higher than species level.
The many examples I provided were all transitions at the species level, and are all considered macroevolution.
You'll always be a willfully ignorant moron PaV. It's the one thing you're good at.
THorton:
DeleteI asked you a long time ago, those brachiopods, Eucoelia, do they represent micro-evolution or macro-evolution?
What's your answer?
PaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteI asked you a long time ago, those brachiopods, Eucoelia, do they represent micro-evolution or macro-evolution?
I already answered your question in the preceding post PaV you moron. I can't do anything about your willful ignorance and stupidity.
The Eocoelia shown are an example of a transitional fossil series over ten million years and at least four different species. That won't change no matter how many childish semantic games you try to play.
THorton:
DeleteAgain, the discussion ends with you being intellectually dishonest. You won't answer a straight-forward question . . . because you know what will come next. So you prefer to hide in the bushes.
BTW, if I'm "willfully ignorant," apparently the entire biology department at U.C. Berkeley is also "willfully ignorant."
Talk about childish games, Tom.
Tom:
DeleteI didn't look at your provided link because I knew it was only going to be a waste of time. Well, I looked. What nonsense.
The whole point of the page is to bore you with all kinds of needless details in order to convince you that microevolution really is--contrary to those rascalian "Creationists"--the same thing as macroevolution.
Typical liberal nonsense. When your argument is defeated, then start re-defining words.
What a bunch of nonsense.
PaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteI didn't look at your provided link because I knew it was only going to be a waste of time. Well, I looked. What nonsense.
LOL! Willfully ignorant and proud of it! No sense reading the scientific literature and learning when you already know everything, right PaV?
The whole point of the page is to bore you with all kinds of needless details in order to convince you that microevolution really is--contrary to those rascalian "Creationists"--the same thing as macroevolution.
Double LOL! What were those darn those scientists thinking, providing all those pesky details? Why bother learning about the evidence when willful ignorance is so easy, right PaV?
Typical liberal nonsense. When your argument is defeated, then start re-defining words.
You mean like when you redefined FOUR to mean TWO?
THorton:
DeleteYou're an imbecile.
What "scientists"? It's a hash-mash of mealy-mouth drivel. What a waste of time.
Tell me, is "TalkOrigins" peer-reviewed? Yes, or no!
Tell me this: should I pay more attention to a U.C. Berkeley webpage, or to TalkOrigins?
But, of course, you can't answer honestly, so why bother asking.
Speaking of answering:
you still haven't answered the question I asked you five posts ago, have you?
So, again, and again: that line of sea shells, is that indicative of micro-evolution, or macro-evolution?
You're as intellectually dishonest as the day is long.
THorton:
DeleteYou're "monumentally" intellectually dishonest.
There is a cure, however: just accept the truth--instead of the myths you've been weaned on.
PaV Lino the world's dumbest Creationist
DeleteYou're "monumentally" intellectually dishonest.
LOL! Let's see PaV:
You're the one who has been repeatedly lying about me not answering your question.
You're the one who was too lazy to read the fossil description and whined about FOUR was TWO.
You're the one who has been playing a childish semantic game over the meaning of 'macroevolution'.
You're the one who hand waves away the primary scientific literature as 'a hash-mash of mealy-mouth drivel' because you're too ignorant to understand it.
Go ahead PaV. Show us again who's the real dishonest one here.
Call the Waaaaaaaahmbulance! Bpragmatic down! Redirect! "scare quotes"! You stick it to main stream science and show them what real science is all about. Do you think the theory of evolution predicts transitional forms? What about ID? What does that predict regarding a fossil record?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnother one! Creationist meltdown bonanza.
DeleteRVW sanctimoniously barfed:
Delete"Evolutionists have no right to be angry or moralize in any way, shape or form."
Yeah, it's much better to have the so-called morals of a lying, slave mongering, war mongering, rape mongering, fear mongering, hate mongering, bigoted, plague bringing, murderous, genocidal, ecocidal, petty, jealous, insecure, contradictory, destructive, sadistic, evil creating, eternally punishing, wrathful, demanding, imaginary sky daddy than to have the morals of an evolutionist.
Hey RVW (or is it bpragmatic?), what do you think of theistic evolutionists and IDiots who claim to not be against evolution?
"Hey RVW (or is it bpragmatic?), what do you think of theistic evolutionists and IDiots who claim to not be against evolution?"
DeleteDon't know what RVW would say, since I don't know him or have ever discussed anything with him. But I can tell you what I think. The label you want to hang on something is meaningless with regard to what the science tells us when interpreted from a pragmatic point of view. In other words, your personal labels, equivications and speculations don't mean anything with regard to what is the essence of the discussions from a scientific point of view.
So, I plead with you. Please crawl back into your hole and be still.
Thank you.
"The label you want to hang on something is meaningless with regard to what the science tells us when interpreted from a pragmatic point of view. In other words, your personal labels, equivications and speculations don't mean anything with regard to what is the essence of the discussions from a scientific point of view."
DeleteLook at a mirror when you say that.
bdogmatic said:
ReplyDelete"You should get the f out of here and allow real science to guide reasoning to logical conclusions..."
Like the "logical conclusions" that sheep and goats produce striped offspring due to mating while looking at striped sticks, and that a snake talked a man's-rib woman into eating magic fruit from a tree of good and evil, which pissed off her loving, merciful sky daddy who then vented his all-powerful wrath onto every living thing on Earth and even permanently punishes most humans, that he specially created in his image, in a lake of fire?
Yep, that's some "real science", LOL.
I'll play....
ReplyDeleteWell let's start at the other end and work backwards. Do you agree that rapid evolution or evolution by macromutation would not require transitional forms?
rapid evolution would require transitional forms, that should be obvious. But there will be less of them, because the evolution is rapid.
Macromutation wouldn't require transitional forms, by definition. But so what? Evolutionary biology is constrained to explain what we observe, and we observe continuous variation - we don't see very many "hopeful monsters". So the fact that we observe continuous variation means that we have to explain this variation, and this implies transitional forms.
"So the fact that we observe continuous variation means that we have to explain this variation, and this implies transitional forms."
DeleteAre you serious? At what levels are you claiming continuity to exist? How can you demonstrate "continuity" on any level that is relevant to the conjecture of NDE on all relevant levels of the organsism that must be addressed? Are you out of your mind, or simply ignorant? Or perhaps both?
Look around you.
DeleteOK, perhaps I didn't make it clear, I wasn't exclusively meaning in the fossil record. We see continuous variation in the natural world, e.g. in body size, colouration, and a host of other things. It's this we need to explain.
Because we see this, it implies that if a species is to evolve to change in a trait that is continuous, it will have to go through transitional forms.
Bob O'H:
ReplyDeleteMacromutation wouldn't require transitional forms, by definition. But so what? Evolutionary biology is constrained to explain what we observe, and we observe continuous variation.
Well we're not off to a very good start. First, we do not observe continuous variation. That's why punctuated equilibrium, just as an example, was invented. To explain the abrupt character of the fossil record between the static forms.
But more to the point, the "so what?" is that since evolution does not require transitional forms, then their existence does not support the theory. If my theory is a fact with A or ~A, then the truth value of my theory is neutral with respect to this observation. the observation of A doesn't help my theory.
CH: "But more to the point, the "so what?" is that since evolution does not require transitional forms, then their existence does not support the theory. If my theory is a fact with A or ~A, then the truth value of my theory is neutral with respect to this observation. the observation of A doesn't help my theory."
DeleteThe technical term for this is a red-herring fallacy.
It's like saying that theory of gravity does not predict elliptical orbits because orbits are not elliptical in general relativity. And since theory of gravity predicts both elliptical and non-elliptical orbits, Kepler's observations cannot count as confirmation of theory of gravity.
That's exactly what you do, Hunter. And that is why no one will take you seriously outside of creationist circles.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteIf my theory is a fact with A or ~A, then the truth value of my theory is neutral with respect to this observation. the observation of A doesn't help my theory.
"ToE predicts transitional forms" and "not all transitional forms are captured by the rare fossilization process" don't represent two opposites "A and ~A". You know that but still choose to play your dishonest rhetorical games.
ToE does predicts transitional forms, ID-Creationism predicts no such forms. Transitional forms are indeed found in the fossil record. That is positive evidence for ToE and negative evidence against ID-Creationism.
Well we're not off to a very good start. First, we do not observe continuous variation.
DeleteYou're right. Go outside and look at the people around you. Are they all the same height? Are they only a few different heights, or is height continuous? We observe this continuous variation both within and between species.
This isn't complex science, its basic naturalism. You need to open your eyes and look at the real world.
OK, I see there might be some confusion here. When I wrote that we see continuous variation, I was meaning continuous variation in extant species. But I should have made it clear - I now see that you interpreted what I wrote to mean in the fossil record.
DeleteMy apologies for causing confusion.
Bob:
DeleteOK, I see there might be some confusion here. When I wrote that we see continuous variation, I was meaning continuous variation in extant species. But I should have made it clear - I now see that you interpreted what I wrote to mean in the fossil record.
My apologies for causing confusion
Thanks for the gracious reply.
Oleg: It's like saying that theory of gravity does not predict elliptical orbits because orbits are not elliptical in general relativity. And since theory of gravity predicts both elliptical and non-elliptical orbits, Kepler's observations cannot count as confirmation of theory of gravity.
DeleteExactly.
General relativity doesn't include a laundry list of exceptions because it's based on an explanation about how the world works in a specific field.
We take GR seriously, as if it was true in reality, along with the rest of our current, best explanations, and that all observations should conform to them - all.
Science in the business of explaining how the world works, not what any one person will experience.
In fact, It's unclear how, exactly, that is even a reasonable or rational expectation. Apparently, Cornelius is just throwing things at evolutionary theory hoping they will stick.
Do not have clue what your anti-religious rants have to do with the required science needed to demostrate NDE as the source of what is needed in order to produce our abilities to observe and discuss the topics at hand, as well as the topics at hand. Can you educate us on that?
ReplyDeleteRichie talks about NDE in terms of "main stream science"
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke. There is no legitimate academic science that would allow the vast array of undemonstrable assumptions leading to the multitudes of conjecture to pass as real "science" in order to promulgate what really is no more that a philosophy regarding the issues involved. You pack of vermin. Society needs you to crawl back ihto your holes and end your spewage of trite conjecture. Your brand of speculation passed as legitimate science has had it's voice well beyond what it is due. So get the f out of here and let real science progress.
"So the fact that we observe continuous variation means that we have to explain this variation, and this implies transitional forms."
ReplyDeleteNot so fast oh purveyor of typical NDE unfounded exuberance.
Variantions (leading from one type of organism to another}, from the science, only implies DIFFERENCES. No one has been able to scientifically demonstrate that "transitional forms" in the NDE sense actually exist. If you think me incorrect, please show where, outside of the usual speculations, this has ever been demonstrated.
Uh, well, after you provide your definitions of variations, type of organisms, DIFFERENCES, scientifically demonstrate, and transitional forms in the NDE sense, in enough detail to determine what you mean, then you might get a proper response.
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is demonstrate that the fairy tale "mechanisms" of nde are capable of producing anything we observe on the molecular level in living cells. You can't even do that! What kind of "science" is that? Why should any thinking person buy that crap? How has nde made it this far? What a tragic joke. What a WASTE.
DeleteWhat is "nde"?
Deletetwt:
Deletende is neo-Darwinian evolution.
Real science as in 'God-did-it'?
ReplyDeleteHi there, I just wanted to say thanks for this informative post, can you please allow me to post it on my blog?
ReplyDeletefacts about t rex dinosaur
Yes, please do.
Delete