Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Gigantopithecus]

Quotes from Darwin regarding the fossil record. Interesting stuff.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/darwin/darwin.htm

You reject special creation. Fine. So please explain your theory of how speciation occurs. I'm all ears.

What is a species?

 

[Phokus]

Evowhatnow? - Republican Party

 

[Nik]

PhineasJWhoopee: talk big, get owned by biologist

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

"Punk eek" was never intended to replace Darwinian evolution, it is the recognition that Darwinism struggles to accurately describe parts of the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is, essentially, genetic drift writ large. Natural selection isn't the only mechanism that drives evolution; modern biologists also recognize genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as causes of evolution.

Darwin wrote that "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous."

However, Darwin recognized that the fossil record did not contain fossils of these "intermediate" forms of life: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Hence the need for theories like "Hopeful Monsters", and "Punctuated Equillibrium".

Here's the bottom line: Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."

How do you resolve this objection?

 

[Nik]

^^^ You never answered dude's question. What's a species?

 

[sandorski]

Darwin wrote that "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous."

However, Darwin recognized that the fossil record did not contain fossils of these "intermediate" forms of life: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Hence the need for theories like "Hopeful Monsters", and "Punctuated Equillibrium".

Here's the bottom line: Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."

How do you resolve this objection?

lol, so much Fail, so little awareness of it.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Darwin wrote that "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous."

However, Darwin recognized that the fossil record did not contain fossils of these "intermediate" forms of life: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Hence the need for theories like "Hopeful Monsters", and "Punctuated Equillibrium".

Here's the bottom line: Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."

How do you resolve this objection?

I answered that question earlier in this thread:

Well the whole concept of 'a missing link' doesn't make sense to me. There will always be missing links given an incomplete fossil record, just like there are missing links in a family history that doesn't have a complete record. In order for there to be no missing links in evolutionary history, we'd literally have to possess a record of every individual organism that ever lived. The missing links in my own family history start showing up in the late 1800s, so if we can't do it for humans that lived in historical times, we sure as shit can't do it for everything that's ever lived.

I also disagree with Darwin. The fossil record did not represent the greatest challenge to his theory of evolution - the total lack of understanding how genetics works did. As I also stated earlier in the thread, the fact that our discovery of how genetics operate supported Darwin's ideas and provided the basis to strengthen our understanding of evolution is what truly impresses me (and many biologists). Very few scientific ideas survive the development of an entirely novel field of research.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What is a species?

Good question. It's a matter of some debate among scientists.

I get the impression that this is a leading question.D:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

While your point about special creation being unfalsifiable is certainly true, this statement is not. Mammals and dinosaurs are actually about the same age. The oldest widely accepted dinosaur fossils are about 230Mya, while the oldest widely accepted true mammal fossils are about 220Mya.

Duly noted. My language was sloppy since I was just riffing. I really meant modern mammals, making the point rather that we do not find manatee fossils in pre-cambrian strata, for example.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

"I answered that question earlier in this thread."

I've been drifting in and out of this thread, so I'll have to back track.

What does modern genetics have to do with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

Sorry if you already explained it and I missed it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"I answered that question earlier in this thread."

I've been drifting in and out of this thread, so I'll have to back track.

What does modern genetics have to do with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

Sorry if you already explained it and I missed it.

Of course you missed it. It's right there in the library of evidence already supplied to you that you are refusing to read.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

 

[Nik]

Good question. It's a matter of some debate among scientists.

I get the impression that this is a leading question.D:

You're a freakin pro at asking them, you should know.

Of course it is.

Now, link some support that the concept of a species is in debate. What scientists?

Oh, and go read the link we originally sent you and continue to give to you that you continue to refuse to acknowledge.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

So? What difference does that make?


Huh? What part don't you get? The "un"? The "falsify"? The "able"? Put it together, genius.

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper.

or

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them.

Which defintion do you subscribe to?

 

[Nik]

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper.

or

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them.

Which defintion do you subscribe to?

What experiment can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to prove that god exists or that man has a soul or that the bible isn't just a book of fairy tales written by deceitful men?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You're a freakin pro at asking them, you should know.

Of course it is.

Now, link some support that the concept of a species is in debate. What scientists?

Gladly.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g3422186465206j1/

"Everybody is familiar with the ubiquitous term ‘species’. But what is a species? Undeniably, this is one of the most complex dilemmas in the history of biology. There is no other concept in biology as elementary yet controversial as the concept of species. In practice, a species is regarded as the fundamental unit of comparison in all biological disciplines like systematics, evolution, ecology, ethology, physiology, and genetics. However, little agreement exists in the scientific community regarding the nature of species, whether it is a real entity or a cultural artifact, its biological significance or how to delineate a species. This article is a review of the seemingly endless debate on the species concept and its implications."

 

[Nik]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What experiment can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to prove that god exists or that man has a soul or that the bible isn't just a book of fairy tales written by deceitful men?

So you subscribe to the second definition, is that correct?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper.

or

Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them.

Which defintion do you subscribe to?

Evolution is falsifiable according to either criteria, so what difference does it make?

 

[Nik]

So you subscribe to the second definition, is that correct?

I refuse to click anything your brainwashed broken record ass posts until you read this and comment on it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I've always been told that if you really understood something that you could explain it to someone.

If that's true, continuously sending links doesn't speak highly of your understanding of the topic.

 

[Nik]

So you subscribe to the second definition, is that correct?

Are you capable of answering questions with punctuation that does not include a question mark?

 

[Nik]

I've always been told that if you really understood something that you could explain it to someone.

If that's true, continuously sending links doesn't speak highly of your understanding of the topic.

I already understand it. I don't need you to know that I understand it. You need to put your money where your mouth is and read what we link you if you expect us to reciprocate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now shut the fuck up and read it.

 

[Jeff7]

Ok, so is this Phineas person some returning banned member?

Every post is terribly formulaic.

- Statement somewhat related to previous post.
- Question posed, either to dodge a previous question, or else to feign ignorance.

Or else it's my preferred hypothesis: The Matrix is attempting to compensate for the banning of GodlessAstronomer, in some unusual way. Everyone knows this.®

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

However, little agreement exists in the scientific community regarding the nature of species, whether it is a real entity or a cultural artifact, its biological significance or how to delineate a species. This article is a review of the seemingly endless debate on the species concept and its implications."

The problem with you is that you do not understand that the above is no revelation to evolutionary biologists, and the fact is that it is true precisely because of common ancestry. In other words, it is difficult to draw lines between species because of the fact that there is such a high degree of interrelatedness among them. Why should this be a problem if all animals were created as distinct creations?

 

[darkswordsman17]

From here on out, every response in this thread should just be to provide that link until he actually goes and reads it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/