Denial of Evolution VI.

[rpenner]

A transitional fossil is a fossil of a transitional form.
A transitional form is a individual with traits (morphology, typically for fossils) intermediate between an ancestral clades and latter-existing clades.

So identification of a transitional form is incomplete without a description of the clades that it is intermediate to.
Tiktaalik is a transitional form between bony fish and tetrapods. It is a bit to fishy to be a tetrapod and a bit too leggy to be a typical fish. Of course you can redraw the lines of either clade to include it as one or the other, but that's literally shifting the goal posts if you try to argue that it is not actually intermediate.

// Added

In the E. coli long-running experiment, after the latter-exists aerobic citrate-metabolizing strain was discovered, they searched their man-made fossils ( i.e. frozen historical samples) and identified specific transitional forms between the original strain and the successful mutant strain.

In the evolution of men, a great number of transitional forms between chimp-like apes and modern man have been discovered. Creationists deny that they are in any way transitional, but the fact of the matter is that these creationists disagree with each other on which fossil is "ape-like" and which is "man-like" in a manner consistent with they hypothesis that the fossils are transitional and they creationists are just pushing the goal-posts back and forth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

// Added

There is no transitional form between cats and dogs, because these are both modern clades. There are transitional forms between cats or dogs and any cat-dog common ancestor clades like miacids or tetrapods or bony fish.

 

[wellwisher]

Fossil evidence infers falsely based on a technicality. If I made a design with popcorn, so all kernels touch in a continuous fashion, and then allow this design to remain for the birds, animals, bugs and rain for a several months, what would be left is analogous to fossil data. The once continuous design would now look like it had been discontinuous. Based on the remaining data, you cannot infer continuous, even if it began that way. The hard data would say discontinuous. It is all based on legal technicality.

To prove this right or wrong, we could look at human fossils where the data is continuous to see if it also says discontinuous.

I quoted myself to give an example where we have access to continuous data to show continuous change and the pitfalls if we were to somehow lose 99% of the data, like with fossils.

Humans have been getting taller since records were kept. We are taller today compare to Roman times. This is based on averages and appears to follow a continuous curve instead of in jumps. The steady pressures of culture induce a steady genetic change.

Say we could not rely on historical records but only had bit and pieces of data separated by hundred of years. The curve will look more like the genetics is jumping in spurts. Or if we can't average due to too few specimens we could find a 7 footer and later a 4 footer and conclude based on the known data human height jumped since it was easier to pick apples and then shrank as blueberries were found. The fact is all sizes, skin tones, behavior specialization is all part of the human equation and not separate paths of evolution. Soft science needs dogma or else there are too many ways to undermine it with logic and common sense.

 

[Trippy]

i assume you meant to put the word you in there somewhere.

Yes.

no slight on evo but stuff isn't so well laid out as it seems.
to lead our children to believe we got this stuff solved IS WRONG.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe it's your understanding that's flawed?

now for the killer.
the article can be easily solve by a simple definition.

grumpy:
what is a transitional fossil?

Simple. A transitional fossil (or species) is one that shows features intermediate or between its ancestors and its descendants.

For example, Pakicetus has its nostrils at the front of its skull. Modern Gray Whales have their nostrils at the top of its skull. Evolution predicts there should be an intermediate form with its nostrils in the middle of its skull. And in 1966 we found Aetiocetus. Which, as predicted, exists after Pakicetus, but before modern gray whals and has its nostrils in the middle of its skull.

Two correct predictions made by evolutionary theory.

Understanding Evolution: Transitional Forms I suggest you take a look at this site.

 

[billvon]

to lead our children to believe we got this stuff solved IS WRONG.

It is "solved" in so far as we know that life evolved from single celled organisms. There will, of course, always be more work to do on the details.

Compare this to gravity. We teach gravity as a fact in elementary schools. Do we know everything about the mechanism of its operation? Not even close.

 

[leopold]

In the E. coli long-running experiment, . . .

i got the site bookmarked:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[Trippy]

In the E. coli long-running experiment, after the latter-exists aerobic citrate-metabolizing strain was discovered, they searched their man-made fossils ( i.e. frozen historical samples) and identified specific transitional forms between the original strain and the successful mutant strain.

Sounds like a shit job, still, I suppose someone had to go through the motions... >_> :Cricket chirp:

 

[leopold]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Evolution-VI&p=3082686&viewfull=1#post3082686
article explained.
first of all you must remember who the article was written for.
second, a transistional fossil isn't 1 fossil, it's a series of them, possibly 3 and that is probably what the scientists were looking at, the data.
to claim we have all these "transitional fossils" is erroneous and that's why.
solutions? yeah, they're everywhere.

 

[rpenner]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Evolution-VI&p=3082686&viewfull=1#post3082686
article explained.
first of all you must remember who the article was written for.
second, a transistional fossil isn't 1 fossil, it's a series of them, possibly 3 and that is probably what the scientists were looking at, the data.
to claim we have all these "transitional fossils" is erroneous and that's why.

Neither [POST=3082686]post 537 on page 27 of this thread[/POST] nor any source you cite supports your claim that any claim of a transitional fossil is incorrect.

solutions? yeah, they're everywhere.

You can't even be trusted to explain what you see as the problem, so your attempt to provide a purported solution simply exposes your ignorance and lack of logical thinking.

You haven't even mastered rule one of holes.

 

[spidergoat]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Evolution-VI&p=3082686&viewfull=1#post3082686
article explained.
first of all you must remember who the article was written for.
second, a transistional fossil isn't 1 fossil, it's a series of them, possibly 3 and that is probably what the scientists were looking at, the data.
to claim we have all these "transitional fossils" is erroneous and that's why.
solutions? yeah, they're everywhere.

The thing is, evolution would be true even without the fossil evidence. DNA alone reveals the relationship between species. It can even tell you when a species was likely to have diverged from another.

 

[leopold]

The thing is, evolution would be true even without the fossil evidence.

the thing is, i never questioned evolution to begin with.
i wanted answers to the article.
they aren't goiung to find the transitional fossils because they must have 3 or more.
do you really believe a scientist would conclude otherwise?
one fossil alone can easily be seen as it's own line but 3 or more would clearly show the transition.
THIS is what scientists are looking for and you aren't going to find many.
it explains the gaps AND the conclusion of the conference.

edit
you also need to remember who the article was intended for.

 

[iceaura]

Humans have been getting taller since records were kept.

Once again: not so.

Human height appears to be genetically uniform across the planet among all but a couple of localized tribes in Africa, and to be unchanged since Cro-Magnon times - Cro-Magnons seem to have been about as tall as the tallest of current humans other than the Dutch. Other taller groups in history include the Northern Cheyenne in the North America after the introduction of the horse and before the impoverishment of the European conquest, whose median male adult height neared 72 inches (taller than the median US male now, and near the current young adult Dutch median).

Shorter groups of humans have poor diets, greater childhood disease prevalence, and greater levels of socioeconomic inequality, throughout history - released from these oppressions, they all apparently rapidly grow to current Western norms, and beyond, regardless of their mating patterns or inheritances. John Komlos would be a good name to begin one's Google search on, for this stuff, but you've been linked to his stuff before without apparently learning much from it.

The genetics for height in the taller Cro-Magnon people and the near dwarfed Dutch (the shortest people in Europe) of the late 1800s and early 1900s seem to have been about the same - once released from oppression and war, and blessed with an equitable distribution of resources within a prosperous society, the Dutch grew to Cro-Magnon heights within a couple of generations - far too quickly for genetic change. They are currently remodeling their entire housing stock to add to the heights of doorways and such.

the article can be easily solve by a simple definition.

The article is not a problem - Lewin was confused about some stuff, but it's all been straightened out now. The definition you need is of macroevolution - you can't use the one the evolutionists use, because it conflicts with your claims.

what is a transitional fossil?

A fossil formed during the time a currently extant taxon was splitting off from its ancestors, which displays some features found in the new taxon together with some of the old, and possibly some intermediate features. An example would be the recently reported transitional fossil between wasps and ants, an insect fossil which was searched for and discovered in exactly the rock formation (out of all the rock on this planet) predicted by Darwinian evolutionary theory.

 

[Randwolf]

i assume you meant to put the word you in there somewhere.
i'm sorry about that.
no slight on evo but stuff isn't so well laid out as it seems.
to lead our children to believe we got this stuff solved IS WRONG.

now for the killer.
the article can be easily solve by a simple definition.

what is a transitional fossil?

A transitional fossil is any fossil that you may find... Can you tell me why this is leopold?

 

[wellwisher]

Shorter groups of humans have poor diets, greater childhood disease prevalence, and greater levels of socioeconomic inequality, throughout history - released from these oppressions, they all apparently rapidly grow to current Western norms, and beyond, regardless of their mating patterns or inheritances. John Komlos would be a good name to begin one's Google search on, for this stuff, but you've been linked to his stuff before without apparently learning much from it.

Doesn't that logically imply the (food) environment controlling a genetic factor, in this case height? If these wretched souls were to migrate to a better diet, wow, they genetically alter and get taller, right? It is not random, but cause and effect. The capacity to be tall must already there but needs to be triggered through external means. This is not always the case, but migration changes the inputs.

If these poor diet people migrated to better food and we have two fossils, one before and one after, like magic a mutation, right? We may not notice a continuous change unless the diet was supplemented slowly instead of all at once.

I think I can see how evolution got fooled. Say diet will impact height and one person is stronger and takes most of the good foods, he will get taller via cause and effect. We may read too much into this, and have fantasies like his height made it possible to get more food via natural selection.

 

[leopold]

... Can you tell me why this is leopold?

yes, it's called clouding the issue.

 

[billvon]

Doesn't that logically imply the (food) environment controlling a genetic factor, in this case height?

No; height is not purely genetic. It also depends on food supply, injuries in growth plates, disease etc.

If these wretched souls were to migrate to a better diet, wow, they genetically alter and get taller, right?

No, their basic DNA does not change. They just get taller.

he capacity to be tall must already there but needs to be triggered through external means.

Correct. Without food people die and cannot express their genes. Without enough food they are weaker/smaller/less well nourished.

I think I can see how evolution got fooled. Say diet will impact height and one person is stronger and takes most of the good foods, he will get taller via cause and effect. We may read too much into this, and have fantasies like his height made it possible to get more food via natural selection.

You cannot feed a mouse a lot and get a giraffe. If the potential for growth is not there - it won't happen no matter how much you eat.

 

[iceaura]

I quoted myself to give an example where we have access to continuous data to show continuous change and the pitfalls if we were to somehow lose 99% of the data, like with fossils.

The problems with your attempted popcorn analogy have been pointed out to you several times. It doesn't work, it lacks key and fundamental properties of the fossil record that are the very ones used to argue in support of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and you have been confronted with this fact several times now.

You don't learn anything about "pitfalls" from your analogy, because it isn't a good one. It doesn't match. It's missing key features.

If these wretched souls were to migrate to a better diet, wow, they genetically alter and get taller, right?

Only if there were a selection pressure.consistently, for a sufficient number of generations.

That has not happened, as far as researchers can determine. The evidence is that the genetic components and influences on human species height have not been significantly altered among any group of humans during the 50k years of human migrations or any of the dietary changes accompanying them, and remain more or less the same for all demographic groups of people except a couple of localized genetic pockets in Africa (and maybe elsewhere? unknown, afaik). That is not something one could assume, btw - that is a discovery, and an interesting one.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Correct. Without food people die and cannot express their genes. Without enough food they are weaker/smaller/less well nourished.

Compare the average height of a Japanese citizen to the average height of an American Sansei.

 

[Trippy]

I've done more research than I would care to admit over the last few days, and I have come to some conclusions regarding some matters that have yet to be raised in this thread. I don't really have time to go into them at the moment as the explanations are approaching essay like proportions. There's a historical context around the Chicago conference that needs to be discussed. Contrary to leopolds allegations, it is not my contention that Lewin lied about anything, nor is that the contention, I believe, of anybody else. The only contention is that Lewin was overly enthusiastic in his reporting and he had good reason to be. Science had no good reason to print a retraction because Lewin did not lie. Science did the only thing they were required to do and that was print the rebuttals of Lewins report to provide a more balanced stance.

On a side note. I have come to the conclusion, after two days of research, that the number I used for calculating Nitrogen loading was too high (even though it was consistent with, although at the high end of, other accepted guidelines).

According to the Sciforums Model™ I have two options availble to me:
1. I can put on my big boy pants, provide the justification for having used the wrong figure, research a new figure, redo the calculations, and re-write the affected parts of my report.
2. Rant and rave until I turn red in the face and accuse my director of taking part in a global conspiracy with big pharma to cover up the true extent of pollution due to septic tanks as part of a plot to subdue the populace by introducing drugs to drinking water and the food chain.

Guess which path I'm going to follow...

 

[rpenner]

Guess which path I'm going to follow...

Hiring Roland Emmerich to film a movie advocating that all the great "steel core" buildings in the world are actually dependent on an unstable form of nitrogen and watching them blow up one after another starting with the Eiffel Tower to Channing Tatum (playing you) saying "I told you so" in various ways to various world leaders.

 

[Trippy]

Hiring Roland Emmerich to film a movie advocating that all the great "steel core" buildings in the world are actually dependent on an unstable form of nitrogen and watching them blow up one after another starting with the Eiffel Tower to Channing Tatum (playing you) saying "I told you so" in various ways to various world leaders.

Why start with the eiffel tower? I'm sure I could do some research linking it to the destruction of the world trade center, which would also explain the governments desire to link its destruction to islamic extremists.

I think I'd rather be played by Hugh Jackman, he's closer to my height than Channing Tatum is. Channing Tatum would still be an acceptable choice though.