|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 12:29:07 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That's not what I asked.
But it is what I asked for in the OP.
quote:
We can reproduce other wars and we can reproduce the mechanisms behind wars (ie: shooting a gun).
And we can demonstrate random mutation, selection, and speciation in the lab.
quote:
Show me evolution producing new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them.
Already done. The evidence is transitional tetrapods and the DNA evidence is the genomes of their descendants (lobed finned fish and tetrapods).
quote:
I asked what evolved first, the ability to breath air (ie: outside of water) or legs (then answer the other questions I asked).
And that is exactly what I gave you. Lungs evolved first. There are still fish that gulp air in brackish waters and fish that estivate in mud and breath air between rainy seasons (the lungfish).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:12:12 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Already done. The evidence is transitional tetrapods and the DNA evidence is the genomes of their descendants (lobed finned fish and tetrapods).
That's not evolution producing what I asked, that's just showing that what I ask exists.
quote:
And we can demonstrate random mutation, selection, and speciation in the lab.
Can you demonstrate these mechanisms produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA that codes for them?
quote:
And that is exactly what I gave you. Lungs evolved first. There are still fish that gulp air in brackish waters and fish that estivate in mud and breath air between rainy seasons (the lungfish).
You didn't answer the rest of my question though. Your argument is, because these animals exist, lungs must have evolved first. Just because they exist does not mean that lungs evolved first and it doesn't even mean that lungs evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:15:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
How can we determine whether it is a unique species or an adaptation of an earlier species?
Perhaps we can't.
quote:
We cannot prove it absolutely, no. But we can 'speculate' with a level of confidence, which is bolstered by the discovery of further transitional species, and the complete absence of any discovery of species which contradict the 'rules' of evolutionary theory.
UCD is unfalsifiable. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD. There is no reason for me to believe a possible discovery can contradict the "rules" of evolutionary speculation.
quote:
I've already said we can't replicate this to happen before your very eyes. But we have all the evidence left behind.
Evidence based on interpretation.
quote:
It's all about probabilities. How do you think justice works? We cannot perfectly re-create what happened at a crime scene. If justice required the level of proof you put on evolutionists, no-one would ever be found guilty.
I didn't ask you to perfectly re - create what allegedly happened, just show me that evolution can plausibly produce what you alleged it has. Show me evolution producing new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them. It doesn't have to be exactly how it was allegedly produced the first time.
quote:
I can show you that evolution is the best (most probable) explanation for what has been produced.
It's not even probable enough for you to re - produce.
quote:
I can't show you a fish evolving into a fish with legs.
Exactly.
quote:
It's all about probabilities. Nothing is absolutely certain, including the ball returning to Earth. You can't be *certain* that if it was done 1 million times, it would return to earth every single time, unless you actually do it 1 million times. So there is a level of probability (faith, if you like) attached to everything.
Well, no, but I can repeat the experiment over and over and then predict, based on past observations, that it will come back down. In the case of evolution, you are unable to repeat the experiment even once.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 4:24:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:23:54 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That's not evolution producing what I asked, that's just showing that what I ask exists.
What you want is ridiculous and beyond the scope of this thread. You want millions of years of evolution to occur within a few years in the lab. It doesn't work that way.
quote:
Can you demonstrate these mechanisms produce new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA that codes for them?
The demonstration is the difference in DNA between species.
quote:
You didn't answer the rest of my question though. Your argument is, because these animals exist, lungs must have evolved first. Just because they exist does not mean that lungs evolved first and it doesn't even mean that lungs evolved.
Your argument was that legs and lungs had to coevolve. This isn't true. There are fish without legs which utilize a lung. That was my whole point. By every phylogenetic study I have read lungs evolved first.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:26:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
What you want is ridiculous and beyond the scope of this thread. You want millions of years of evolution to occur within a few years in the lab. It doesn't work that way.
Millions of years is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.
quote:
The demonstration is the difference in DNA between species.
Different programs have differences in their code, it doesn't mean they share a common ancestor program. Just because there exists differences within the code of organisms does not mean they share a common ancestor and it does not mean evolution produced what it alleges to have produced.
quote:
Your argument was that legs and lungs had to coevolve. This isn't true. There are fish without legs which utilize a lung. That was my whole point. By every phylogenetic study I have read lungs evolved first.
When you say that there are fish without legs which utilize lungs, so what? You are assuming evolution here, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Bad logic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:28:38 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If it has a transitional form it is transitional in the sense used of fossils, whether it was the last of its species or not.
I already showed you that this isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:34:26 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Millions of years is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.
Millions of years is established by radiometric dating of the igneous rocks in and around the fossils. Therefore, it is falsifiable.
quote:
Different programs have differences in their code, it doesn't mean they share a common ancestor program.
But if these genomes do share a common ancestor and the changes are due to evolution then you should find a nested hierarchy. This prediction is confirmed.
quote:
Just because there exists differences within the code of organisms does not mean they share a common ancestor and it does not mean evolution produced what it alleges to have produced.
It does if they fall into a nested hierarchy.
quote:
When you say that there are fish without legs which utilize lungs, so what? You are assuming evolution here, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Bad logic.
The lungfish is a real, living species. It does not have legs and it has a lung. I am assuming nothing. There is selectable function for lungs in fish that are not terrestrial, therefore legs and lungs did not have to coevolve.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:35:57 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
If it has a transitional form it is transitional in the sense used of fossils, whether it was the last of its species or not.
I already showed you that this isn't true.
No, you haven't. The Wikipedia definition only asks that the transitional illustrate the transition. This does not require the organism to be in a direct line of descent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:37:06 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
First of all, one has to interpret a fossil correctly. Most fossils could be anything from a group of scattered bones embedded into rock to a leaf that looks like bones. And that differs with each individual perception.
Which leaves a very high probability that bones from two different organisms that were around during the same time may have mistakenly been put together. Given the fact that piltdownman wasn't discovered to be a hoax for over 40 years, there is little reason to believe that bones from different organisms don't ever get accidentally mixed up.
quote:
Secondly, it must be remembered that fossils come from the sedimentary rock layers all over the world and that sediment comes from water indicating a global flood. But since most scientists are out to disprove the bible, instead of looking at all sides of an issue, they dismiss a global flood and instead explain the sediment by a global ice age which no one in history can validate. So that's another example of "interpreting" evidence to make be what the interpreter wants it to be. And fossils are no different.
It is true that their main goal is to disprove anything that contradicts materialism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AIG
The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ 5
Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ 6 Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:
‘The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:41:07 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, you haven't. The Wikipedia definition only asks that the transitional illustrate the transition. This does not require the organism to be in a direct line of descent.
No it did not
quote:
Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
quote:
Millions of years is established by radiometric dating of the igneous rocks in and around the fossils. Therefore, it is falsifiable.
The notion that such structures will emerge in millions of years is unfalsifiable.
quote:
But if these genomes do share a common ancestor and the changes are due to evolution then you should find a nested hierarchy. This prediction is confirmed.
Even if such an alleged hierarchy exists, I already explained several times in other threads why there is no reason for evolution to predict any such thing.
quote:
It does if they fall into a nested hierarchy.
Even if it does, it doesn't mean that evolution should predict any such thing.
quote:
The lungfish is a real, living species. It does not have legs and it has a lung. I am assuming nothing. There is selectable function for lungs in fish that are not terrestrial, therefore legs and lungs did not have to coevolve.
You're still assuming evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:41:45 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Which leaves a very high probability that bones from two different organisms that were around during the same time may have mistakenly been put together.
Then why don't we find any Centaurs in the fossil record?
quote:
Given the fact that piltdownman wasn't discovered to be a hoax for over 40 years, there is little reason to believe that bones from different organisms don't ever get accidentally mixed up.
It was suspected of being a hoax when Dart found Taung Child in the early 1900's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:44:21 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No it did not
quote:
Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
In a cladogram no species is directly ancestral to the next.
quote:
The notion that such structures will emerge in millions of years is unfalsifiable.
And yet they do emerge over millions of years as demonstrated by the fossil record. This is falsifiable by the ratio of specific isotopes in the rocks which surround them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:46:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
And yet they do emerge over millions of years as demonstrated by the fossil record. This is falsifiable by the ratio of specific isotopes in the rocks which surround them.
I meant by method of unguided evolution (which you knew). You are arguing that these structures exist, therefore they evolved. You are assuming the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:47:00 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Even if such an alleged hierarchy exists, I already explained several times in other threads why there is no reason for evolution to predict any such thing.
You are so afraid of the theory that you must ignore what it predicts. How sad.
quote:
Even if it does, it doesn't mean that evolution should predict any such thing.
It has predicted this very thing ever since OoS was written.
quote:
You're still assuming evolution.
Why does one need to assume evolution in order to know that the lungfish has no legs but does have lungs?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:47:57 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
You are so afraid of the theory that you must ignore what it predicts. How sad.
The problem is that it doesn't predict anything. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it never falsified UCD. UCD is unfalsifiable.
quote:
It has predicted this very thing ever since OoS was written.
People have been claiming that there exists this alleged hierarchy before evolution. Some have used it as evidence for design. Evolutionists simply take what is there and allege this is what evolution predicts. There is no reason for evolution to predict it. If this alleged hierarchy does exist, one can predict that future findings will conform to this alleged hierarchy based on the fact that past findings have always done so, evolution is not needed to make such a prediction.
quote:
Why does one need to assume evolution in order to know that the lungfish has no legs but does have lungs?
You need evolution to assume that one evolved before the other.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/15/2008 4:57:33 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:48:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The problem is that it doesn't predict anything.
Yes, it does. Why do you continue to promulgate this lie?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:49:53 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The problem is that it doesn't predict anything. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it never falsified UCD. UCD is unfalsifiable.
UCD predicts a nested hierarchy for species that are incapable of horizontal gene transfer which includes all metazoans. You can try to claim otherwise, but you can't change the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:50:31 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Yes, it does. Why do you continue to promulgate this lie?
It's not a lie, but I suppose you get mad when people refute the evolutionary lie with truth. You don't want anyone to promulgate anything that may contradict your bias, censorship of that which disagrees with you is what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 4:55:43 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Then why don't we find any Centaurs in the fossil record?
If the bones obviously don't match up we can assume that they are not from the same organism. We shouldn't expect a small bird to have a bone the size of a large horse, anyone can figure out that those are from two different organisms. I refer to more subtle differences, differences that could be mistaken as a transitional when put together when in fact those two bones were from different organisms. That's one problem with fossil interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:05:54 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 90
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
And pray tell, why on earth would a well adapted fish choose to risk it's life in trying to leave the water in the first place!?! I don't know, why don't you ask one of these guys?
So you point me to a creature that can survive out of water. What's your point? Are you telling me this is a transitional? Are you saying this species will eventually riside entirely on land?
quote:
You have quite the penchant for partaking in the fallacies you accuse others of. In this case, incredulity.
Ever heard of ridiculous credulity? That's Darwinism.
quote:
There are plenty of fish alive today that can survive on land. Take this fish for example. Organisms like these give us clues as to the possible pathways organisms might have taken when transitioning from water to land. ...possible, may have... - same old song.
So there are fish today that can survive on land? Are saying you have proof absolute that any of these fish, past or present is a transitional?
Q: If so, where is the proof that it is exactly so?
A: You don't have any? You can never have any cause it happens over gazillions of years?
There's the correct answers.
That's what I'm pointing out and that's why you can never claim anything is a transitional between major forms. Pointing to a fish that possibly adapted in some small way (or was simply created that way) is hardly macro-evo.
The ubiquitous extrapolation from micro to macro is not science either. It's conjecture.
So as Behe points out in the Edge... there are limits to what is possible in a genome.
And you all simply ignore the facts repeatedly admitted by Darwinists when they aren't being careful about what they say.
So let's read it again:
quote:
So the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe, the authors of the new study say.(Anne Minard, Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument, National Geographic News, July 9, 2008.) Simple. "had little choice but to believe." means they knew there was no real transitional evidence.
Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for the evidence of links never found. - Lunn
If Darwinism were true, we should have found billions of links, for there had to have been billions of transitionals. There are an estimated 13 million life forms on this planet - do have any idea how many transitionals that would require? Obviously not.
How many real proveable links are there between major forms? None.
You people point me to fish that can survive on land but completely miss the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these are transitionals. Any creationist will simply that God made them such and any IDist will say that as I have - no evidence that it is in fact such. And you have no basis in factual step by mutational step evidence at all to say the contrary except of course your a priori committement to materialsim! Just as Lewontin says.
Restating you assertions ad infinitum or pointing to fish alive today do nothing to support your claims. It's pure speculation and if you were honest you would admit it. As have others.
quote:
A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis. - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory compared to : quote:
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
"Paleontology (study of fossils) cannot be regarded other than as a hostile witness (against evolution). "It is not possible to draw up a pedigree showing the descent of any species, living or extinct, from an ancestor belonging to a different order. The earliest know fossils of each class and order are not half-made or half-developed forms, but exhibit, fully developed, all the essential characteristics of their class or order. . . .It is not possible to arrange a genealogical series of fossils proving that any series has in the past undergone sufficient change to transform it into a member of another family.
"All the changes proved by fossils to have taken place in animals are within the limits of the family."
In the book "IS EVOLUTION PROVED?" Douglas Dewar quoted Sir J. William Dawson, F. R. S., of McGill University (Montreal), a trained geologist. Prof., Dawson said in his day: "The evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. . . .that in our day a system destitute of any shadow of proof. . . .should be accepted as a philosophy, and should enable adherents to string upon its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge is surpassing strange." - Sir J. William Dawson
quote:
"This does not mean that the profession is about to abandon Darwin forever or endorse my views publicly.
The situation remains much as it was: the inner circles are full of doubt, but the public utterances are confident. The doubts may be greater now and the confidence less serene, but it will be a long time before the public is given the full dark picture. There is still need for a dissenting voice, a devil's advocate, a skeptical whistle-blower." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit Books, 1971), foreword.
quote:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."
-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Your answers so far are just speculation on current species, added to support your speculations. Hey this fish can survive out of water therefore evolution is true! Hardly scientific. The world is still waiting for real proof - not speculation based on materialist assumptions.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:11:04 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 338
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
UCD is unfalsifiable. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD. Yes he was. But just because he was wrong about something doesn't mean the theory is falsified. You often say it is unfalsifiable, but are told that something outside the expectations like a unicorn would falsify evolution theory. Why do you not accept that this would falsify evolution theory?
quote:
There is no reason for me to believe a possible discovery can contradict the "rules" of evolutionary speculation. Yes there is. Find a unicorn! Or any species outside the 'rules'.
quote:
quote:
It's all about probabilities. How do you think justice works? We cannot perfectly re-create what happened at a crime scene. If justice required the level of proof you put on evolutionists, no-one would ever be found guilty. I didn't ask you to perfectly re - create what allegedly happened, just show me that evolution can plausibly produce what you alleged it has. Show me evolution producing new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, or the DNA for them. It doesn't have to be exactly how it was allegedly produced the first time. We can't re-create this in the lab within less than 10s or 100s of millions of years. We can observe it in the fossil record, and determine that incremental change could have brought it about, and combine this with other evidence such as the observed incremental change, and conclude that this is the best explanation.
quote:
quote:
I can show you that evolution is the best (most probable) explanation for what has been produced.
It's not even probable enough for you to re - produce. It's not down the probabilities that we can't re-produce the environment. You are being disingenuous saying this.
A question for you: hypothetically, do you think that incremental change *could*, over the course of many many generations, result in so much change that we get a new species? Again, what does YEC think will happen if micro-evolution continues for 10 or 100 million years?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:13:18 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 338
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Yes, it does. Why do you continue to promulgate this lie?
It's not a lie, but I suppose you get mad when people refute the evolutionary lie with truth. You don't want anyone to promulgate anything that may contradict your bias, censorship of that which disagrees with you is what you want.
If it's not a lie, then why is this not a prediction:
quote:
UCD predicts a nested hierarchy for species that are incapable of horizontal gene transfer which includes all metazoans. You can try to claim otherwise, but you can't change the facts.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:14:18 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
UCD predicts a nested hierarchy for species that are incapable of horizontal gene transfer which includes all metazoans. You can try to claim otherwise, but you can't change the facts.
There is no reason for UCD to predict any such thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:15:24 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 338
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, you haven't. The Wikipedia definition only asks that the transitional illustrate the transition. This does not require the organism to be in a direct line of descent.
No it did not
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Crikey are we still going on about this!
The quoted article says (emphasis added):
quote:
Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/15/2008 5:16:16 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
If it's not a lie, then why is this not a prediction:
Already explained.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
