|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/7/2008 10:31:02 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
Of course there are fossils of these creatures. How else would we know of their existence?
We're talking about currently living species. We don't need fossils to know of their existence.
But the argument made by Juhd refers to fossils.
I think that the whole point is that the living species that we have today are the fossil species, or are at least very similar to them.
quote:
No we can't.
There is NO WAY to conclude that the genetic material did not change without access to the genetic material.
Look, BVZ. Every creature that's ever lived on the face of the planet has experienced genetic changes that didn't manifest in phenotypic variation. We can get a brain mutation in our arm. We can get a foot mutation in our eyeball. Even gametes that become fertilized can, for several reasons, undergo mutations that result in nothing no change at all. Can we please assume, that a change in the genotype that does not result in any change, is not a part of this argument?
quote:
The shell of the chambered nautilus remained unchanged (and highly complex in its own right) so we are forced to assume that the great leap from nautilus to cuttle fish, to squid just happened without leaving any evidence.
When you are forced to make assumptions, it kind of makes sense to use the most powerful scientific theory available.
And that's exactly what we are forced to do. There is no evidence against evolution because we are forced to fit our predictions and findings into this theory or the facts will never be published in a scientific journal. The evidence will never speak for itself. Things stayed the same. From what we can tell, the fossil record is not evidence of change over time. It is evidence of the stuff that is alive today being buried. That's the most powerful argument. That's the #1 unifying theory of the history of the universe. The stuff doesn't look different because it isn't different. Evolution is built on a foundation of "could have"s and "it's possible"s and "given enough time it might"s.
I'm not going to tinker with this whole idea that it's not a problem for evolution. I think that the whole premise of this thread is that it is a problem for evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/7/2008 1:53:09 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6798
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You are wrong.
When phenotypes in fossils change over time, we know that the genetic material has changed, since the phenotype is generated from the genotype.
Well, no, we don’t actually.
Dogs for example are phenotypically plastic – that is their body structures are easily changed through the regulation of their genes – so such changes don’t necessarily indicate a change in genetic material – indeed, the ‘genetic material’ of various dog types is incredibly similar.
The other issue of course is assumption – because evolutionists assume all organisms derived via evolution from a common ancestor, that makes every morphological difference in the fossil record 'evidence' for a genetic change caused by evolution. It may indeed represent a change in genetic material (or, as we have seen above, it may not) but it does not in and of itself demonstrate that evolution occurred.
quote:
When the phenotypes in fossils DO NOT change, like we see in the examples you have provided, we can't conclude anything, so we don't.
We can conclude evolution did not take place, because evolution is natural selection acting on expressed variation in an organism – and if there is no expressed variation, whatever is happening genetically, evolution did not occur.
quote:
We can use the already strong scientific theories we DO have to make predictions however.
Such as:
1) Mutations must have occurred in the static creatures.
You cannot verify this prediction – so it isn’t a ‘prediction’, it is an assumption.
quote:
2) The parts of their phenotype (that can fossilize) must have been very well adapted to their environment.
Again, that is a circular argument – how do we know it is well adapted? It survived. Why did it survive? It’s well adapted. This says nothing about the evolution that did or did not occur (though technically, it is a tacit admission no evolution occurred)
quote:
3) Their environment remained static for a very long time.
Absurd of course that the ocean would remain static for 500 million years.
quote:
These predictions are falsifiable.
How? How are you going to test the genetics of the ancestral jellyfish? How are you going to determine how ‘static’ it’s environment was? How are you going to ‘falsify’ the notion that it was well adapted, since such a notion is based on the fact that it happens to still be here? Falsification schema must involve some requirements for testing.
quote:
Now, if you want to damage evolution, you can try to show these predictions to be false.
But the mere existence of stasis is not a problem for evolution.
It must be a major problem because it has caused you to offer the most laughable ‘predictions’ I think I have ever encountered.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/10/2008 9:58:53 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 488
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
Of course there are fossils of these creatures. How else would we know of their existence?
We're talking about currently living species. We don't need fossils to know of their existence.
But the argument made by Juhd refers to fossils.
I think that the whole point is that the living species that we have today are the fossil species, or are at least very similar to them.
The only conclusion we can make is that the parts that DID fossilize are the same. We have no way to verify if the parts that did NOT fossilize was different or not.
quote:
quote:
No we can't.
There is NO WAY to conclude that the genetic material did not change without access to the genetic material.
Look, BVZ. Every creature that's ever lived on the face of the planet has experienced genetic changes that didn't manifest in phenotypic variation.
Agreed.
quote:
We can get a brain mutation in our arm. We can get a foot mutation in our eyeball. Even gametes that become fertilized can, for several reasons, undergo mutations that result in nothing no change at all.
Agreed.
quote:
Can we please assume, that a change in the genotype that does not result in any change, is not a part of this argument?
Why?
quote:
quote:
The shell of the chambered nautilus remained unchanged (and highly complex in its own right) so we are forced to assume that the great leap from nautilus to cuttle fish, to squid just happened without leaving any evidence. When you are forced to make assumptions, it kind of makes sense to use the most powerful scientific theory available.
And that's exactly what we are forced to do. There is no evidence against evolution because we are forced to fit our predictions and findings into this theory or the facts will never be published in a scientific journal.
When doing science, you are forced to do only one thing: Use physical evidence. But if you are UNABLE to fit the new evidence into the older theory, then two possible things can happen:
1) The theory is falsified, and it is only used until a better one is devised.
2) The theory is modified to accommodate the new evidence, making it more accurate.
2 has happened a few times, which is why the theory of evolution is not the same theory created by Darwin.
1 has not yet happened.
Either way, if 1 or two happens, it WILL be published in scientific journals.
quote:
The evidence will never speak for itself. Things stayed the same. From what we can tell, the fossil record is not evidence of change over time.
Fossils that stay the same does not say the organism that left the fossils did not change over time, since it is only certain parts of the organism that get fossolized.
quote:
It is evidence of the stuff that is alive today being buried. That's the most powerful argument. That's the #1 unifying theory of the history of the universe. The stuff doesn't look different because it isn't different.
Since we do not know how the parts that did not fossilize looked like, we can't tell if they were different or not.
quote:
Evolution is built on a foundation of "could have"s and "it's possible"s and "given enough time it might"s.
Agreed. But that is not what makes it a good theory. The fact that it explains the diversity of species, and the fact that it makes accurate predictions is what makes it a good scientific theory. Also, the fact that we have lots of evidence supporting it seems to help a lot too.
quote:
I'm not going to tinker with this whole idea that it's not a problem for evolution. I think that the whole premise of this thread is that it is a problem for evolution.
Agreed. That is the premise of the thread. It is not an accurate premise.
< Message edited by BVZ -- 3/10/2008 10:05:14 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/10/2008 10:26:42 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 488
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
You are wrong.
When phenotypes in fossils change over time, we know that the genetic material has changed, since the phenotype is generated from the genotype.
Well, no, we don’t actually.
Dogs for example are phenotypically plastic – that is their body structures are easily changed through the regulation of their genes – so such changes don’t necessarily indicate a change in genetic material – indeed, the ‘genetic material’ of various dog types is incredibly similar.
You can identify ANY breed of dog using genetics. The phenotype of any breed of dog is dependant on its phenotype. So what I said is accurate.
quote:
The other issue of course is assumption – because evolutionists assume all organisms derived via evolution from a common ancestor, that makes every morphological difference in the fossil record 'evidence' for a genetic change caused by evolution. It may indeed represent a change in genetic material (or, as we have seen above, it may not) but it does not in and of itself demonstrate that evolution occurred.
Of course. Which is why scientists don't use stasis as evidence AGAINST evolution. Why? Because there is no evidence to use. There is no information to work with.
We have fossils that remain static over a long period of time. So? Like I said, the only real conclusion that can be reached from this (using the theory of evolution) is that they must have been very well adapted to their environment. Other than that there isn't anything to work with.
Remember that scientific theories can only use evidence, and stasis doesn't really provide any evidence to work with. Stasis does not pose any problems for evolution, since evolution predicts stasis when populations are well adapted.
quote:
quote:
When the phenotypes in fossils DO NOT change, like we see in the examples you have provided, we can't conclude anything, so we don't.
We can conclude evolution did not take place, because evolution is natural selection acting on expressed variation in an organism – and if there is no expressed variation, whatever is happening genetically, evolution did not occur.
And since we know FOR A FACT that not everything expressed by the genes were fossilized, we CANNOT conclude that they did not evolve, since the soft tissues can still change and evolve.
How do you know that the genes that resulted in the shell (that CAN fossilize) did not evolve in such a way that shell formation becomes streamlined and uses less energy?
Your assumption that ONLY fossilizable parts of an organism can evolve is a false one.
quote:
quote:
We can use the already strong scientific theories we DO have to make predictions however.
Such as:
1) Mutations must have occurred in the static creatures.
You cannot verify this prediction – so it isn’t a ‘prediction’, it is an assumption.
Are you serious?
Unverified predictions are still predictions.
quote:
quote:
2) The parts of their phenotype (that can fossilize) must have been very well adapted to their environment.
Again, that is a circular argument – how do we know it is well adapted?
We DON'T. Which is why it is a prediction. If we already KNEW, it would not be a prediction would it?
quote:
It survived. Why did it survive? It’s well adapted. This says nothing about the evolution that did or did not occur (though technically, it is a tacit admission no evolution occurred)
So? What is the point you are trying to make in this sentence?
quote:
quote:
3) Their environment remained static for a very long time.
Absurd of course that the ocean would remain static for 500 million years.
Please don't stop there Juhd! Why do you think an environment could not remain static for 500 million years?
quote:
quote:
These predictions are falsifiable.
How? How are you going to test the genetics of the ancestral jellyfish?
I don't know. Perhaps it will never be possible. Perhaps it will be. Remember that just because current technology or knowledge does not allow us to verify or falsity a specific prediction, does not make that prediction unfalsifiable.
quote:
How are you going to determine how ‘static’ it’s environment was?
Since you think that the environment was NOT static, surely you must already know of a way? How else could you possibly have come to the conclusion that it was not static?
quote:
How are you going to ‘falsify’ the notion that it was well adapted, since such a notion is based on the fact that it happens to still be here? Falsification schema must involve some requirements for testing.
Hold on... are you saying that the fact that these creatures are still around indicates that they are NOT well adapted? I hope not. That would be a really weird thing to say.
quote:
quote:
Now, if you want to damage evolution, you can try to show these predictions to be false.
But the mere existence of stasis is not a problem for evolution.
It must be a major problem because it has caused you to offer the most laughable ‘predictions’ I think I have ever encountered.
Are you saying that the theory of evolution does NOT make these predictions?
Juhd, again, show me how stasis is a problem for evolution. Your dancing, while mildly entertaining, is getting a bit old. Simply stating that its a problem for the ToE without any actual argument will not cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/10/2008 12:34:57 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6798
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You can identify ANY breed of dog using genetics. The phenotype of any breed of dog is dependant on its phenotype. So what I said is accurate.
Actually, that’s the point – it’s not dependent on phenotype – it would be dependent largely on regulation of genes, not, as you put it, a change in the genetic material. The material is often the same, only the regulation differs.
quote:
Of course. Which is why scientists don't use stasis as evidence AGAINST evolution. Why? Because there is no evidence to use. There is no information to work with.
quote:
We have fossils that remain static over a long period of time. So? Like I said, the only real conclusion that can be reached from this (using the theory of evolution) is that they must have been very well adapted to their environment. Other than that there isn't anything to work with.
Remember that scientific theories can only use evidence, and stasis doesn't really provide any evidence to work with. Stasis does not pose any problems for evolution, since evolution predicts stasis when populations are well adapted.
Stasis is good evidence against the notion that natural selection and mutation are ordinary events in the history of life – they may still occur, but the fact that there is no evidence of their occurrence in numerous extant organisms is evidence that they don’t always occur. For evolution to have occurred in these organisms, it required natural selection to act on mutations, neither of which seems to have occurred.
quote:
And since we know FOR A FACT that not everything expressed by the genes were fossilized, we CANNOT conclude that they did not evolve, since the soft tissues can still change and evolve.
How do you know that the genes that resulted in the shell (that CAN fossilize) did not evolve in such a way that shell formation becomes streamlined and uses less energy?
Your assumption that ONLY fossilizable parts of an organism can evolve is a false one.
There is no evidence that an expressed genetic change occurred; one can speculate that such a change did occur, but our observations (which do in many cases include soft parts, internal organs, and even genetics) indicate that no evolution occurred – in other words, based on our observations, we can conclude this is the case.
quote:
Are you serious?
Unverified predictions are still predictions.
Unverifiable predictions are not valid predictions in science – you understand the difference, right?
quote:
We DON'T. Which is why it is a prediction. If we already KNEW, it would not be a prediction would it?
So? What is the point you are trying to make in this sentence?
That it is circular! Do you know what a circular argument is? It’s an argument that assumes it’s conclusion by its premise. It doesn’t prove anything. Thus:
It’s well adapted > because it survived. It survived > because it’s well adapted. It’s well adapted > because it survived> etc, etc, etc.
quote:
Please don't stop there Juhd! Why do you think an environment could not remain static for 500 million years?
Because environments by their very nature are in constant flux.
quote:
I don't know. Perhaps it will never be possible. Perhaps it will be. Remember that just because current technology or knowledge does not allow us to verify or falsity a specific prediction, does not make that prediction unfalsifiable.
So basically you have made a prediction that has an imaginary falsification schema. Well at least you admitted it.
quote:
Hold on... are you saying that the fact that these creatures are still around indicates that they are NOT well adapted? I hope not. That would be a really weird thing to say.
I am saying that you arte engaging in more circular reasoning which proves nothing.
quote:
Are you saying that the theory of evolution does NOT make these predictions?
I am saying you made up the most ridiculous predictions I have seen, and no self-respecting evolutionist would have advanced such notions.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 3:18:19 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 488
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
You can identify ANY breed of dog using genetics. The phenotype of any breed of dog is dependant on its phenotype. So what I said is accurate.
Actually, that’s the point – it’s not dependent on phenotype – it would be dependent largely on regulation of genes, not, as you put it, a change in the genetic material. The material is often the same, only the regulation differs.
Do you think that regulatory genes are not part of the genome?
quote:
quote:
Of course. Which is why scientists don't use stasis as evidence AGAINST evolution. Why? Because there is no evidence to use. There is no information to work with.
quote:
We have fossils that remain static over a long period of time. So? Like I said, the only real conclusion that can be reached from this (using the theory of evolution) is that they must have been very well adapted to their environment. Other than that there isn't anything to work with.
Remember that scientific theories can only use evidence, and stasis doesn't really provide any evidence to work with. Stasis does not pose any problems for evolution, since evolution predicts stasis when populations are well adapted.
Stasis is good evidence against the notion that natural selection and mutation are ordinary events in the history of life – they may still occur, but the fact that there is no evidence of their occurrence in numerous extant organisms is evidence that they don’t always occur. For evolution to have occurred in these organisms, it required natural selection to act on mutations, neither of which seems to have occurred.
How do you know? You keep repeating this, but you consistently fail to explain to me why you think mutations did not occur.
quote:
quote:
And since we know FOR A FACT that not everything expressed by the genes were fossilized, we CANNOT conclude that they did not evolve, since the soft tissues can still change and evolve.
How do you know that the genes that resulted in the shell (that CAN fossilize) did not evolve in such a way that shell formation becomes streamlined and uses less energy?
Your assumption that ONLY fossilizable parts of an organism can evolve is a false one.
There is no evidence that an expressed genetic change occurred; one can speculate that such a change did occur, but our observations (which do in many cases include soft parts, internal organs, and even genetics) indicate that no evolution occurred – in other words, based on our observations, we can conclude this is the case.
And this is a problem for evolution how?
quote:
quote:
Are you serious?
Unverified predictions are still predictions.
Unverifiable predictions are not valid predictions in science – you understand the difference, right?
Yes, unverified predictions are unverified, and verified predictions are verified. Both are predictions though. Which is my point.
quote:
quote:
We DON'T. Which is why it is a prediction. If we already KNEW, it would not be a prediction would it?
So? What is the point you are trying to make in this sentence?
That it is circular! Do you know what a circular argument is? It’s an argument that assumes it’s conclusion by its premise. It doesn’t prove anything. Thus:
It’s well adapted > because it survived. It survived > because it’s well adapted. It’s well adapted > because it survived> etc, etc, etc.
It's axiomatic. Things that are better adapted survive better. If you are already extremely well adapted, any change would be AWAY from optimal, so you will stay the same, which causes stasis.
(Besides, it is not a circular argument, because it is not an argument. It is a definition. The definition of well adapted in this case = the ability to survive and to reproduce. Do you know what the difference between 'argument' and 'definition' is?
quote:
quote:
Please don't stop there Juhd! Why do you think an environment could not remain static for 500 million years?
Because environments by their very nature are in constant flux.
Really? Show me why you think the environment of the crabs was in constant flux.
quote:
quote:
I don't know. Perhaps it will never be possible. Perhaps it will be. Remember that just because current technology or knowledge does not allow us to verify or falsity a specific prediction, does not make that prediction unfalsifiable.
So basically you have made a prediction that has an imaginary falsification schema. Well at least you admitted it.
Why would I not admit it?
Einstein made predictions using his theories, which were impossible to falsify at that time, since the technology available then were not up to the task.
The falsification is not imaginary. To falsify the claim, you need genetic material from an ancestral jellyfish, and analyze it. Why do you say this is impossible?
quote:
quote:
Hold on... are you saying that the fact that these creatures are still around indicates that they are NOT well adapted? I hope not. That would be a really weird thing to say.
I am saying that you arte engaging in more circular reasoning which proves nothing.
Answer the question. Are you saying that the fact that these creatures are still around indicates that they are NOT well adapted?
quote:
quote:
Are you saying that the theory of evolution does NOT make these predictions?
I am saying you made up the most ridiculous predictions I have seen, and no self-respecting evolutionist would have advanced such notions.
Answer the question. Are you saying that the theory of evolution does NOT make these predictions?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 1:08:31 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Do you think you have someone by the throat, BVZ? The soft-bodied Nematodes are found in Carboniferous rocks. Wanna take a guess as to how similar they are to present-day Nematodes? Really I don't know but I'll bet we can expect that they'll be exactly the same. Fossil jellyfish are found that have the same bell-shape, gonads, muscles, etc. as present day jellyfish. You could fossilize a jellyfish today and it would look just like their 500 million year old fossil grandparents. Nematodes, Cnidarians, annelids, crustaceans, mollusks, cephalopods, all of them represented by static ancestors. Why do all these fossils look the same as the ones we have today? Because the nematodes, cnidarians, annelids, crustaceans, mollusks and cephalopods that we have today were buried by a flood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 2:52:44 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3184
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
Because the nematodes, cnidarians, annelids, crustaceans, mollusks and cephalopods that we have today were buried by a flood WITHOUT EVER EVOLVING!.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 3:10:35 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 800
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Nematodes, Cnidarians, annelids, crustaceans, mollusks, cephalopods, all of them represented by static ancestors. Why do all these fossils look the same as the ones we have today?
Actually, they don't. Belemnites, for instance, are quite distinct from modern molluscs.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 3:26:41 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3184
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
Of course they are, es. God created them as a distinct kind of marine animal on day 5. So what is your point?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 4:18:02 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 800
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Of course they are, es. God created them as a distinct kind of marine animal on day 5. So what is your point?
DanJames said that these fossil critters "look the same as the ones we have today," but they don't.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 4:52:22 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3184
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
How could belemnites "look the same as the ones we have today," since they alledgedly died out a few hundred million years ago?! Do you have any evidence that belemnites evolved into something other than belemnites? No, I didn't think so!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 5:11:00 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 800
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
How could belemnites "look the same as the ones we have today," since they alledgedly died out a few hundred million years ago?!
DanJames said that all fossil molluscs look the same as living molluscs. Belemnites are a counterexample.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/13/2008 7:42:23 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
How could belemnites "look the same as the ones we have today," since they alledgedly died out a few hundred million years ago?!
DanJames said that all fossil molluscs look the same as living molluscs. Belemnites are a counterexample.
Woah, hey, hooo, hold it, HOLD ON, hold the phone!! I said that they are represented by static ancestors. I don't want to imply that the stuff that we have today is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There has been thousands of years worth of variation since they were buried, so we should expect to see slight differences. Nevertheless, fossilize a sponge, jelly fish, round worm, chambered nautilus, or any of the various crustaceans mentioned by Jhud, and you'll find... "Oh my. This looks suspiciously like the 205 million year old guy I dug up last week. How amazing that it's managed to survive relatively unchanged for so long..." I could probably name a few that are alive today that are not represented in the fossil record also. Give me a second to Google any Class in the kingdom Animalia and I'll have a list of evidence that fossilized what-have-you's don't look the same as living what-have-you's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 6:54:33 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 331
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Stasis is good evidence against the notion that natural selection and mutation are ordinary events in the history of life – they may still occur, but the fact that there is no evidence of their occurrence in numerous extant organisms is evidence that they don’t always occur. For evolution to have occurred in these organisms, it required natural selection to act on mutations, neither of which seems to have occurred.
Why would dramatic change have to occur continually in every species for evolution to be true? If the theory predicts that the best-suited species will fill the ecological niche, then we should expect a well adapted species to remain static, simply because the majority of changes to the species will not confer a survival advantage.
One thing I would be interested in seeing is if, historically, a static species has always occupied the same geographical region, or if they've migrated along with changes in the environment so that they stayed the same, but in different areas of the world.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
There has been thousands of years worth of variation since they were buried, so we should expect to see slight differences. Nevertheless, fossilize a sponge, jelly fish, round worm, chambered nautilus, or any of the various crustaceans mentioned by Jhud, and you'll find... "Oh my. This looks suspiciously like the 205 million year old guy I dug up last week. How amazing that it's managed to survive relatively unchanged for so long..." I could probably name a few that are alive today that are not represented in the fossil record also. Give me a second to Google any Class in the kingdom Animalia and I'll have a list of evidence that fossilized what-have-you's don't look the same as living what-have-you's.
Slight changes are evolution. They aren't examples of mass evolution, but they are evolution nevertheless. Again, if a species is well-adapted to an environment, they will stay the dominant species in their particular niche until the environment undergoes significant changes, or another species becomes better adapted to the same niche.
Moreover, you just used two counterexamples, and then claimed them both for your own side of the argument.
You said that some things look the same as they did millions of years ago, and then that some things don't look like things that lived millions of years ago. This, to me, is exactly what evolution via natural selection is. Well adapted species will remain static, other species will change due to environmental pressures.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 11:00:23 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 800
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Woah, hey, hooo, hold it, HOLD ON, hold the phone!!
Sorry if I mischaracterized your meaning. I was trying to use short enough words that drmark could understand my point.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 11:05:21 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Woah, hey, hooo, hold it, HOLD ON, hold the phone!!
Sorry if I mischaracterized your meaning. I was trying to use short enough words that drmark could understand my point.
ouch
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 11:09:31 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
There has been thousands of years worth of variation since they were buried, so we should expect to see slight differences. Nevertheless, fossilize a sponge, jelly fish, round worm, chambered nautilus, or any of the various crustaceans mentioned by Jhud, and you'll find... "Oh my. This looks suspiciously like the 205 million year old guy I dug up last week. How amazing that it's managed to survive relatively unchanged for so long..." I could probably name a few that are alive today that are not represented in the fossil record also. Give me a second to Google any Class in the kingdom Animalia and I'll have a list of evidence that fossilized what-have-you's don't look the same as living what-have-you's.
Slight changes are evolution. They aren't examples of mass evolution, but they are evolution nevertheless. Again, if a species is well-adapted to an environment, they will stay the dominant species in their particular niche until the environment undergoes significant changes, or another species becomes better adapted to the same niche.
Moreover, you just used two counterexamples, and then claimed them both for your own side of the argument.
You said that some things look the same as they did millions of years ago, and then that some things don't look like things that lived millions of years ago. This, to me, is exactly what evolution via natural selection is. Well adapted species will remain static, other species will change due to environmental pressures.
What we see is what we would expect to see if the creatures were buried in Noah's flood. The creatures that we have today were buried. Then over the next few thousand years since disembarking, they've diversified into what we see today. That's why it looks like they've miraculously remained static over the past 500+ million years. It's because they haven't.
And I fail to see why everyone keeps saying that these things are all that great at what they do. Nematode fossils, for instance are nowhere near at the top of their game. These guys lack any true body cavity (pseudocoelomate) and are supposed to be the predecessors to all the guys that followed them that have a true body cavity (coelomate). So while one population went on to become coelomate, the nematodes remained the same. And while that population went on to develope sensory organs and excretory systems, the nematodes stayed the same. Ganglia were developed, circulatory systems were developed, yet the nematodes stayed the same. We know that they must have changed somehow since they are now intestinal parasites in vertebrates that came hundreds of millions of years later, yet superficially they are the same looking creatures as we see in the fossil record... roundworms.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 3/14/2008 11:22:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 4:11:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3184
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ouch The length of the evolutionist's words in their arguments have nothing to do with the patent absurdity of those arguments.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 7:15:00 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 450
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
ouch The length of the evolutionist's words in their arguments have nothing to do with the patent absurdity of those arguments.
ouch
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/14/2008 10:31:13 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 331
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
Now, now children, play nice. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't do so in a civil manner.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
What we see is what we would expect to see if the creatures were buried in Noah's flood. The creatures that we have today were buried. Then over the next few thousand years since disembarking, they've diversified into what we see today. That's why it looks like they've miraculously remained static over the past 500+ million years. It's because they haven't.
And I fail to see why everyone keeps saying that these things are all that great at what they do. Nematode fossils, for instance are nowhere near at the top of their game. These guys lack any true body cavity (pseudocoelomate) and are supposed to be the predecessors to all the guys that followed them that have a true body cavity (coelomate). So while one population went on to become coelomate, the nematodes remained the same. And while that population went on to develope sensory organs and excretory systems, the nematodes stayed the same. Ganglia were developed, circulatory systems were developed, yet the nematodes stayed the same. We know that they must have changed somehow since they are now intestinal parasites in vertebrates that came hundreds of millions of years later, yet superficially they are the same looking creatures as we see in the fossil record... roundworms.
We only see what we would expect from a six thousand year old earth covered in a global flood four thousand years ago within very narrow scopes, whereas a majority of evidence contradicts this. You've probably heard the various arguments against the flood, but just for reiteration: The superevolution required within 'kinds' for all of the modern animals we see to have diverged from the sparse number of animals that could have fit on the ark. The problem of limited populations surviving for any period of time without significant harm done to them via inbreeding. The perfect uniformity distribution of fossils in the geological column. (Eg. We never see human fossils buried below dinosaur fossils, except in cases where the rock layers have been flipped, where we should if the flood mixed everything up.) Massive heat generation with all that moving water/earth. No flood evidence in ice cores. The sediment layers (supposedly) couldn't have been laid down like they are (with heavy/light layers alternating) in flood conditions. Lack of tree-ring evidence (Tree rings can be traced back 10,000 years straight). The existence of freshwater fish in a salinated environment that the flood would have caused. The survival of coral through turbulent water. Not to mention the problem of a 450 foot wooden seagoing vessle being seaworthy, especially in the turbulence that must have occurred in the early flood seas.
There are, in short, a lot of good objections to a world-wide flood, and little to no supporting evidence.
As for creatures being good at what they do. Oh, and just a declaimer before I go on, I'm about to use the nematode reference in my response, and nematodes are an area of knowledge about which I am completely ignorant. I'm open to correction. The only source I'm using for information on them is Wikipedia.
I must reiterate one point before I go on. The argument for stasis in a creature from the viewpoint of evolutionary theory is that the creature is well enough suited to its particular niche that no other species dislodges it. This does not mean that it is a 'good' or complex creature. It does not mean that it is smart, or strong. It simply means that, for the specific niche that the creature inhabits, it is well suited.
Bacteria, for instance, are the most abundant life form on the planet. They have absolutely no intelligence, no real strength to speak of, poor speed, etc... They only have the advantage of being the fastest (to my knowledge) reproducing type of organism on the planet. This is a very good advantage. Even though they are extremely simple in comparative terms to other animals, they do what they do very well. A 'better' species, humans, could not occupy the niche that bacteria do if we tried. Moreover, even though they're rather weak, stupid, and slow, these may be survival traits in bacteria. After all, how much use is an existential crisis to an amoeba?
In the same manner, Nematodes may be extremely simple, and really bad at doing a lot of stuff, but what they do, they do well enough to keep their niche. Things like body cavities, sensory organs, etc... may cost too much energy to produce in relationship to their benefits to a nematode, and therefore are selected against.
One thing to note is that only 15,000 of the 80,000 varieties of nematode are parasitic, so a greater majority of the nematode population retain the free-living status of their fossil ancestors.
Also according to Wikipedia (ACW), nematodes do have rudimentary sensory organs and digestive systems.
Basically, a creature may not be a 'good' creature by human standards, (containing qualities that humans value), and yet still be extremely well adapted to their particular niche.
< Message edited by Real_Solitude -- 3/14/2008 10:39:18 PM >
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 3/17/2008 1:39:45 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
