Originally posted by yousersSince it appears that no one wants to talk about validation rather than hurl insults at creationists, allow me to put out some statements on geological evidence.
I believe you and I have had this discussion about where I stand on creationism in another thread. (I was a little disappointed that you didn't reply to my last post about disproval) I am not defending or even rooting for any type of fusion between science and religion. And as I tried to emphasize in my previous post, I don't want to discuss any current ...[text shortened]... changes among species. I'm sure I've missed the bulk of it, so please feel free to add to it.
The fossil record has been less than cooperative with TOE from the start. We all know Darwin predicted "innumerable transition fossils". The collection at that time was scant, and unfortunately has remained so up to today. We certainly have valid explanations for the lack fossils discovered, since we no know that very specific conditions must exist for their formation.
A few candidates for transition fossils have been recovered and highly publicized. Some have even been exposed as fraudulent, but I don't believe this was on purpose.
The fact is, the fossil record leaves us hanging as far as confirmation. Obviously, we are missing the large majority of proposed transitions among higher classifications. In fact, the record we have shows a greater pattern of sudden appearance and stasis. This does not imply creation necessarily, but it does not support gradual evolution in the least.
Perhaps the most interesting contradiction lies in the Cambrian explosion. We have the appearance of all major phyla in the same strata, preceded my simple one-celled organisms. Evolutionist find themselves with quite a time cramp, if you will, for selection to give rise to that diversity in what appears to be a very short time.
Originally posted by yousersGood thing the TOE isn't committed to Darwinian theory or to gradualism. Even if the TOE was committed to gradualism, it still wouldn't follow that the lack of a perfect record of transition fossils (for there are many instances of transition fossils in the record, as a moments research on your part would reveal) would count against the TOE. This would only constitute evidence against the TOE if certain auxilliary hypotheses are granted, such as that the world tends to fossilize the corpses of many animals, regardless of their habitat, circumstances of their death, etc. (an auxilliary hypothesis that is clearly false, by the way).
Since it appears that no one wants to talk about validation rather than hurl insults at creationists, allow me to put out some statements on geological evidence.
The fossil record has been less than cooperative with TOE from the start. We all know Darwin predicted "innumerable transition fossils". The collection at that time was scant, and unfortunate ...[text shortened]... you will, for selection to give rise to that diversity in what appears to be a very short time.
Originally posted by bbarrWhat then, bbarr, is your way of getting around gradualism - besides an extremely improbable cascade of profitable mutations or isolation of a small population? Do you have empiricle evidence for your alternatives, or have we already strayed to the theoretical?
Good thing the TOE isn't committed to Darwinian theory or to gradualism. Even if the TOE was committed to gradualism, it still wouldn't follow that the lack of a perfect record of transition fossils (for there are many instances of transition fossils in the record, as a moments research on your part would reveal) would count against the TOE. This wo ...[text shortened]... circumstances of their death, etc. (an auxilliary hypothesis that is clearly false, by the way).
Originally posted by yousersIf the TOE isn't committed to gradualism (which it isn't), then gradualism is not something the TOE needs to "get around". If you want to look up the evidence for other models, specifically the punctuated equilibrium model, then be my guest. My point is merely that you are disingenuously attempting to saddle the TOE with theoretical baggage to which it is not committed.
What then, bbarr, is your way of getting around gradualism - besides an extremely improbable cascade of profitable mutations or isolation of a small population? Do you have empiricle evidence for your alternatives, or have we already strayed to the theoretical?
In fact, the record we have shows a greater pattern of sudden appearance and stasis. This does not imply creation necessarily, but it does not support gradual evolution in the least.
But it does show evolution in stops and starts. The hominid fossil record for example is made up of a number of fossil species where, simply explained, older species are more ape-like and the recent species are more human like. We can argue about those individual species being in stasis and then abruptly (geologically speaking) giving way to a different species. But the pattern of change over time is still there, whether or not that pattern is gradual. Creation, as in a single creation event is clearly falsified by the fossil evidence. The fossil record shows no single creation event of species. Species continue to appear throughout time.
Perhaps the most interesting contradiction lies in the Cambrian explosion. We have the appearance of all major phyla in the same strata, preceded my simple one-celled organisms. Evolutionist find themselves with quite a time cramp, if you will, for selection to give rise to that diversity in what appears to be a very short time.
First not all major phyla appear in the cambrian explosion. For example there are no plants at all in the cambrian explosion.
Second there have been a few pre-cambrian phyla found, some of which look very much like cambrian variants. Of course decades ago such fossils had not been found.
As for all major phyla emerging in the cambrian, this is a result of the taxonomic system used. Different phyla during the cambrian were not as distinct from each other as different phyla are today. The cambrian phyla are so similar to one another that change between them could be envisaged as microevolution.
Originally posted by bbarrThe Theory of the Creation of Strawmen.
If the TOE isn't committed to gradualism (which it isn't), then gradualism is not something the TOE needs to "get around". If you want to look up the evidence for other models, specifically the punctuated equilibrium model, then be my guest. My point is merely that you are disingenuously attempting to saddle the TOE with theoretical baggage to which it is not committed.
Originally posted by PotatoErrorYou are correct that there is an order to the geological evidence that illustrates a general trend from simple to complex. And that is very coherent with evolution. Again, for the THIRD TIME, I am not considering strict creationism as a formidable alternative. So, your logic that creationism doesn't work, therefore evolution is correct, does not hold water or pertain to this discussion.
[b]In fact, the record we have shows a greater pattern of sudden appearance and stasis. This does not imply creation necessarily, but it does not support gradual evolution in the least.
But it does show evolution in stops and starts. The hominid fossil record for example is made up of a number of fossil species where, simply explained, older speci ...[text shortened]... e so similar to one another that change between them could be envisaged as microevolution.
[/b]
In response to your second section of text, I'd say the key word is "few." There are some, but I am far from resolving the Cambrian explosion as coherent with TOE.
Originally posted by bbarrYes, you said that in the last post. What I would like from you is alternatives to gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is a wonderful model that provides a plausible explanation for the lack of fossil evidence. However, I found it to be simply that - a theoretical construction that makes the evidence plausible under TOE. The fact remains that any evolution, even theoretically is a) very slow, gradual, and more probable or b) occuring in jumps and HIGHLY improbable.
If the TOE isn't committed to gradualism (which it isn't), then gradualism is not something the TOE needs to "get around". If you want to look up the evidence for other models, specifically the punctuated equilibrium model, then be my guest. My point is merely that you are disingenuously attempting to saddle the TOE with theoretical baggage to which it is not committed.
I am not discussing anything highly theoretical here. If you recall my previous post, I am looking at the empiricle evidence we have for evolution. If you have empiricle evidence for punctuated equilibrium (besides the incomplete fossil record) or for evolution in general, I would love to hear it.
but its not incoherent with it. Elephants in the cambrian would be incoherent with evolution. A lack of fossils in a certain early period is not evidence there weren't any. In fact the few that have been found should be enough to show that such life did exist back then but for some reason has not fossilised as well as later cambrian life.
For example what does this look similar to: http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Spriggina
MisconceptionsEvolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Originally posted by yousers
If you have empiricle evidence for punctuated equilibrium (besides the incomplete fossil record) or for evolution in general, I would love to hear it.
From: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.
The paper describes some new fossils from Montana:
* transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
* 50 specimens of lambeosaurids, transitional between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
* a transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
* a transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus
Until these transitional fossils were found, these dinosaur groups were known only from the large Judith River Formation. There, the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, followed by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms.
It is now known that the sea level rose, drowning the Judith River Formation for 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were forced to move to smaller areas such the place in Montana. Being under pressure, all of these species evolved fairly rapidly, as shown by the transitional fossils in Montana. When the sea level fell again, the new forms spread back to the Judith River area.
So, the new forms appear "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils.
Originally posted by yousersWell, I'm more interested in clearing up your apparent theoretical confusions. For instance, you claim the following:
Yes, you said that in the last post. What I would like from you is alternatives to gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is a wonderful model that provides a plausible explanation for the lack of fossil evidence. However, I found it to be simply that - a theoretical construction that makes the evidence plausible under TOE. The fact remains that any evolutio ...[text shortened]... ium (besides the incomplete fossil record) or for evolution in general, I would love to hear it.
The fact remains that any evolution, even theoretically is a) very slow, gradual, and more probable or b) occuring in jumps and HIGHLY improbable.
Now, what justifies these probabilistic claims? Are you claiming that it is a priori that phyletic gradualism is more probable than punctuated equilibrium?
Originally posted by PotatoErrorI agree 100%. If it is as you say, however, the fossil record does not show strong evidence without alternative explanation that we can consider proof for evolution. In fact, you have conceded that the evidence is rather weak, but not contrary to evolution and definitely not in favor of strict creationism.
but its not incoherent with it. Elephants in the cambrian would be incoherent with evolution. A lack of fossils in a certain early period is not evidence there weren't any. In fact the few that have been found should be enough to show that such life did exist back then but for some reason has not fossilised as well as later cambrian life.
For example what does this look similar to: http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Spriggina
Originally posted by bbarrFirst off, I say that isolation and independent evolution of a small population is improbable. My reasons for doing so include my lack of knowledge of any such case occuring that has been observed by man. Furthermore, I have not seen any reports of generation of new species being observed. (Remember, we are talking empirical evidence and not speculation) Secondly, if this small population were to be isolated, it still must undergo evolutionary processes (at a VERY rapid rate if we consider the Cambrian explosion).
Well, I'm more interested in clearing up your apparent theoretical confusions. For instance, you claim the following:
[b]The fact remains that any evolution, even theoretically is a) very slow, gradual, and more probable or b) occuring in jumps and HIGHLY improbable.
Now, what justifies these probabilistic claims? Are you claiming that it is a priori that phyletic gradualism is more probable than punctuated equilibrium? [/b]
The Founder Effect, Natural Selection, neutral drift, and sexual selection are all proposed mechanisms for such accelleration of the evolutionary process. Natural selection is definitely a gradual process. The founder effects and drift are reliant on chance isolation of a few rare genotypes (which is improbable). Sexual selection may be rapid, but is very limited as to what kind of changes it could cause.
Again, we have no EMPIRICLE evidence or cases of these things happening, i.e. they are theoretical.
And the kicker - We do have empiricle evidence that populations with a small genetic diversity are almost always weaker, after a few generations, than the more diverse main population. Examples of this are the endangerment of native species of New Zealand by immigrant mainland species.
So this isolated small population is supposed to be reunited with the parent population and overtake them as a superior new species - not probable according to the evidence referred to above.
Don't get me wrong, these explanations are excellent at making evolution FEASIBLE with the given geological evidence. I question whether the fossil record really SUPPORTS, let alone proves the "factual" occurrence of evolution
Originally posted by PotatoErrorA great site. Thanks for that.
Originally posted by yousers
[b]If you have empiricle evidence for punctuated equilibrium (besides the incomplete fossil record) or for evolution in general, I would love to hear it.
From: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolut ...[text shortened]... the Judith River area.
So, the new forms appear "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils.[/b]