[_ Old Earth _] Simple Question for Non-Evolutionists

[Doulos Iesou]

I actually used the "nuance" of his quote to show that he refutes what you have been advocating on this thread......a "slow" transition.

Gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium is a totally separate debate within the scientific community. Personally, I think aspects of both are true, but I am no scientist.

To say that a quote from someone stating their opinion about the state of fossil evidence 30+ years ago proves and refutes nothing.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So can you show us this evidence then?

Perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? His quote on the notion of punctuated equilibrium is refuting what you are advocating........a slow"micro-evolution" proves "macro evolution" theory.

His quote is his opinion, which many other top scientists who are experts on Evolutionary Biology disagree with. Shall we play quote wars?

I already addressed one criticism concerning bats and the fossil evidence for transitional species. Would you like more lists of transitional fossils?

 

[Milk-Drops]

So He went on to show his many examples of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions to answer his critics? Can you give me a link to his evidence for this?

He went on to defend the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium. I even provided the link. Did you click it?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions........"

Click the link and read it in context.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I actually used the "nuance" of his quote to show that he refutes what you have been advocating on this thread......a "slow" transition.

No, you are using a quote mine to make Gould say what you want Gould to say. I provided a link that shows the quote in context. Click on it.

 

[gr8grace3]

No, you are using a quote mine to make Gould say what you want Gould to say. I provided a link that shows the quote in context. Click on it.

I did click on it. but didn't need to.

He went on to defend the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium. I even provided the link. Did you click it?

Click the link and read it in context.

I will simplify a bit. I KNOW he went on to defend PE.

Even an evolutionary scientist brings up the SAME argument against "micro-evolution" slowly morphing into "macro-evolution."

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions........"

Can you show us this fossil evidence? He said this back in the 80's. Have we found some of these fossils yet?

PE, needs to be thrown in the mix, because we just don't have the fossil evidence to prove "Slow evolution" changes into "macro-evolution."

PE is the "back door" for evolution. The rapid change in species would equate to way less fossils found because the change was rapid. One more "excuse" for the lack of evidence.

 

[gr8grace3]

His quote is his opinion, which many other top scientists who are experts on Evolutionary Biology disagree with. Shall we play quote wars?

I already addressed one criticism concerning bats and the fossil evidence for transitional species. Would you like more lists of transitional fossils?

Yes,Fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I did click on it. but didn't need to.





I will simplify a bit. I KNOW he went on to defend PE.

I'm convinced that you are confused on what PE means for the theory of evolution then and I think you are fighting with a straw man on what you think evolution is.

Even an evolutionary scientist brings up the SAME argument against "micro-evolution" slowly morphing into "macro-evolution."

As a person who actually went to collage for this, and specialized in classification, I can say that the way you are using micro and macro evolution is not how its actually used in classification and research. Heck, these words are actually not even real terms to actual biologists.

All PE actually is, is the observed phenomenon when a large niche is opened up due to a plethora of factors, organisms rapidity will start adapting to fill the niche. That is the basics of it. Its rapid in the sense that with less competition there is a large fanning out of different structures and adaptive traits. Eventually the niche starts to get crowded and natural selection resumes to start weening back to a gradual crawl. Considering that fossilization is a rare event as it is, it is safe to note that not all intermediates will be fossilized. That is why fossils aren't the only evidence for evolution. Morphology and genetics fill in plenty of gaps.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions........"

Can you show us this fossil evidence? He said this back in the 80's. Have we found some of these fossils yet?

What fossils are you specifically looking for? There are countless species, orders, sub orders, genera, etc. Where would you want me to start?

PE, needs to be thrown in the mix, because we just don't have the fossil evidence to prove "Slow evolution" changes into "macro-evolution."

No evolutionary biologist talks like this, and PE doesn't equal slow becoming fast. Macro evolution in its actual sense is just taking a phylogenetic tree and noting where organisms split off. That is it. Micro or variation within a species just points out population mechanics, but macro would be measuring the differences between isolated gene pools and alle frequencies.

PE is the "back door" for evolution. The rapid change in species would equate to way less fossils found because the change was rapid. One more "excuse" for the lack of evidence.

Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.

 

[Edward]

I have a simple question..

Why are there some flightless animals that have feathers and wings? It would seem like a strange design to create a creature that has wings and feathers like any other bird, but lacked the ability to fly and thus makes this design rather odd an unnecessary.

This observation seems to fit well with the idea that these flightless birds such as an Ostrich or Chicken, it makes much more sense to believe that these birds all have a common ancestor.

Ahh, good question. It made me think of a related question. I know you guys are talking about bats, but may I interject a question?

Thanks brother.

As far as evolutionists go, what is the presumed pre/post transition of feathers for birds. I have heard, but do not know for a fact what it is so would like to confirm. I've heard that fish scales mutated into bird feathers...Is that correct or no?

If not, do you know what it was?

 

[gr8grace3]

I'm convinced that you are confused on what PE means for the theory of evolution then and I think you are fighting with a straw man on what you think evolution is.

As a person who actually went to collage for this, and specialized in classification, I can say that the way you are using micro and macro evolution is not how its actually used in classification and research. Heck, these words are actually not even real terms to actual biologists.

All PE actually is, is the observed phenomenon when a large niche is opened up due to a plethora of factors, organisms rapidity will start adapting to fill the niche. That is the basics of it. Its rapid in the sense that with less competition there is a large fanning out of different structures and adaptive traits. Eventually the niche starts to get crowded and natural selection resumes to start weening back to a gradual crawl. Considering that fossilization is a rare event as it is, it is safe to note that not all intermediates will be fossilized. That is why fossils aren't the only evidence for evolution. Morphology and genetics fill in plenty of gaps.

What fossils are you specifically looking for? There are countless species, orders, sub orders, genera, etc. Where would you want me to start?

No evolutionary biologist talks like this, and PE doesn't equal slow becoming fast. Macro evolution in its actual sense is just taking a phylogenetic tree and noting where organisms split off. That is it. Micro or variation within a species just points out population mechanics, but macro would be measuring the differences between isolated gene pools and alle frequencies.

Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.

ok

 

[Barbarian]

So can you show us this evidence then?

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Notice, he says "generally lacking." Gould cites horses, forams, and ammonites as examples of evolutionary lineages showing gradual evolution rather than punctuated equilibrium. So Gould admits both forms of evolution, although (and I think he's right on this) relatively rapid evolution in small, isolated populations is the more common form of speciation.

Would you like to learn about the evidence for these two different modes of evolution?

 

[Barbarian]

As far as evolutionists go, what is the presumed pre/post transition of feathers for birds. I have heard, but do not know for a fact what it is so would like to confirm. I've heard that fish scales mutated into bird feathers...Is that correct or no?

Fish scales wouldn't work. The key is in the biochemical evidence. Scutes (scales found on dinosaurs, birds, and a few other archosaurs) have the same chemical composition as feathers, while others scales do not share the same composition. Even more interesting is that scutes can be induced to form feathers. There has been suspicion that feathers were a feature of most, if not all dinosaurs, and this evidence suggests that scutes evolved from feathers.
Researchers investigating the ancestry of birds have used scutes as a possible lead in finding the origin of feathers. It has been theorized that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, but testing has revealed that feathers and scales are genetically and chemically different. Scutes, on the other hand, may be genetically more closely linked with feathers. It is even possible that scutes evolved from feathers, rather than vice versa.

Fossil discoveries have indicated that many dinosaurs likely had feathers, and that feathers themselves may be a more primitive characteristic than previously thought. If this is true, it is possible that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common feathered ancestor. Some scientists speculate that the scute could have developed from an early feather structure on an ancestral organism of this type.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-scute.htm

The primitive "Sceathers" found on the thecodont reptile Longisquama also support this idea. Whether or not this is a direct ancestor of dinosaurs (and thus birds) is not the point. It shows that scales can form featherlike structures intermediate between normal scales and feathers.

 

[Barbarian]

But it is still a bat.

Which is like saying that a chimp isn't really different than a human because it's still a primate.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

Look above. See what Gould has to say about that bit of quote-mining. I think that one is now on the "Answers in Genesis" list of "arguments we think creationists should not use."

 

[Edward]

Oh, thanks for the reply brother. Scutes. hadda look that one up, but I got it now. I was thinking about birds recently and it occurred to me that feathers are awesome. The have so little mass, and do so much, allowing a bird which weighs so much more than the feather to take flight. Awesome awesome design.

As usual, you left me with much to ponder and do homework on, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Oh, thanks for the reply brother. Scutes. hadda look that one up, but I got it now. I was thinking about birds recently and it occurred to me that feathers are awesome. The have so little mass, and do so much, allowing a bird which weighs so much more than the feather to take flight. Awesome awesome design.

Better than design. Creation. And all natural. He's amazing.