Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
Feel free to ask questions about evolution.
Author Message
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2520Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Rhed wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:But... it is often in the newspapers. And rarely, if ever, in the funnies.


I see them as the funnies though.



And there we have it.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:56 pm
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:Logic doesn't follow, if your 1,000 genera (plural of genus) of mammals is right, there would be indeed around 500 ancestors, but we don't expect to find all of them in the fossil record simply because they existed once. Not all species left fossils. ]


Yes the logic does seem to follow, if the fossil record perceived almost all modern genera. why wouldn't the fossil record also perceive most direct ancestors too?

the only assumption that I am making is that modern animals have more less the same chance of fossilization than direct ancestros. if nearly 100% of all the 1,000 modern mammalian genera was perceived, why don't we have similar numbers with assessors or candidates?

If there are more than 1,000 modern like mammal genera in the fossil record, why don't we find roughly the same amount of ancestors or at least candidates in the fossil record?.....why is the Fossil record so biased in perceiving modern like animals and so biased against perceiving ancestors or candidates?

I am pretty sure this is a valid and legitimate question.


As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted


the only statement that I am making is that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry.........agree?


for example the fact that dolphins and bats use a similar system for echolocation does not imply common ancestry......... agree?

In response to Rumrakets question>
In a similar way, the fact that tiktaalik has fish and tetrapod traits does not necessary imply common ancestry
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:17 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

:docpalm:

leroy wrote:In fact I do have many honest and sincere questions, for example

where are all the direct ancestors of modern species? why don't we find thousands of direct ancestors in the fossil record?

all modern species came from a direct ancestor and each ancestor came form an other ancestor, ..... in the mammalian class more than 5,000 different direct ancestors have lived, each of them being the direct ancestor of 1 or more modern specie of mammal. ...........so why haven't we found thousands of direct ancestors?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:We already agree on 2 points
1 that transitional fossils have been found (using talk origins definition)
2 A Afarensis is not our direct ancestor.
I made an argument:
"Premise 1: evolution predicts thousands of fossils from direct ancestors
Premise 2: there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record
Therefore evolution made a wrong prediction."

Apparently you have problems with premise 1,


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Citation for your claim that evolution predicts thousands of direct ancestors. That appears to be a straw man and no one is arguing for the straw man of evolution that only exists in your head.


leroy wrote:Well if each modern animal has hundreds of direct ancestors, and these ancestors lived in this planet, then we would expect to find an abundance of fossils that represent direct ancestors.


SpecialFrog wrote:The fossil record represents probably around two hundred and fifty thousand species. Given that there are are four and a half million living species, this represents a fraction of a percent of all species who have ever lived. It would be statistically unlikely for this to include any direct ancestors. Even if it did, we cannot tell conclusively whether any fossil is a direct ancestor of a living species given the limits of DNA preservation.


leroy wrote:Obviously it is impossible to know for sure is a fossil represents a direct ancestor, but at least we would expect to find viable candidates.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:If a transitional fossil lines up in the correct time in earth's history, than it could represent a possible ancestral state. However, without the genetics or an exact fossil record, one could never conclude that.


leroy wrote:A viable candidate would be someone found in the correct period of time and with consistent morphology, for example the direct ancestor of humans and chimps is not expected to have a gorilla-like jaw.

agree?


You realize that "gorilla-like" does not mean a "shared basal trait" with gorillas, right? You do realize Rak et al. are simply making the point that Australopithecus afarensis simply has a large powerful jaw when compared to most other hominins and chimpanzees. You also realize A. afarensis has a lower jaw that shares far more traits in common with humans than the other apes. Again, your ignorance is not an argument.

Now I asked what your background is on anatomy before, and your silence on that question and basic ignorance of these simple facts of this one species are telling. Agree?

We could speculate over whether any given species is a good candidate for a direct ancestor or not, but in the end, that is pointless. Without genetics or an extremely complete fossil record, one cannot determine whether or not a given species could be a direct ancestor or not. That is why no one is trying to claim that any transitional fossils represents a direct ancestor; stop making straw men.


leroy wrote:or just to formulate the question differently.

why do we find modern like humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc. in the fossil record, but we don't find the common ancestor of humans and chimps, nor the ancestor of gorillas and humans, nor the ancestor of humans and orangutans, nor the ancestor of humans and monkeys? why is the Fossil record so good in preserving modern like animals, but so bad in preserving direct ancestors.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Fossils, what fossils?

The missing link between chimps and humans is still missing,


Australopithecus afarensis. Your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:the missing link between gorillas and humans is still missing,


You got one. This transitional form is indeed missing.

leroy wrote:the missing link between orangutans and humans is still missing,


This would be a transitional form between the African ape clade and the Asian ape clade. This critter is called Proconsual africanus, it was a monkey-like ape. Once again, your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:the missing link between moneys and humans is still missing.


This critter is called Aegyptopithecus zeuxis. It was an ape-like monkey. Once again, your ignorance is not an argument.

leroy wrote:Why are there so many modern-like apes and monkeys in the fossil record, and ZERO ancestors,


As I have shown above, your ignorance of the fossil record is showing.

leroy wrote:why is the fossil record so biased in in preserving modern-like animals and in disappearing the ancestors of modern species?


Again, you are simply wrong with this claim. Beyond that we have whole groups of fossils, such as the non-avian dinosaurs, "proto-mammals", and tons of marine reptiles that only exist in the fossil record. Thus, it is incorrect to state that there is a bias in the fossil record for preserving only modern-like animals. Honestly, have a look at my Know Your Bones series and see how many of those fossils are "modern."

leroy wrote:For some reason the fossil record likes to perceive modern-like animals and evolutionary dead ends but doesn´t like to preserve ancestors.


Image


leroy wrote:this is really an honest question, I am honestly interested in an answer


These questions were answered over a year ago, thus I am suspect of your honesty in asking them again.

Rhed wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:But... it is often in the newspapers. And rarely, if ever, in the funnies.


I see them as the funnies though.


What a great example of post-truth.

As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted HERE

Wait....wait....hold on.....YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!!!!


This is dandan's modus operandi. It is as if he is unaware that what is written here can be easily searched, thus we are able to see if these questions have been asked and answered already.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:20 am
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

The same questions, so the same answers.

leroy wrote:Yes the logic does seem to follow, if the fossil record perceived almost all modern genera. why wouldn't the fossil record also perceive most direct ancestors too?


Answer:
No we would [not], again for the same reasons Rumraket has explained. You keep saying that we would expect this, but you don't explain WHY you would.

No, most transitional fossils are considered cousin for the reasons Rumraket explained. I would argue that even if we found a fossil that has all the characteristics we expect of the ancestor, we still cannot be certain it was the ancestor, because (again) not every species that ever lived leaves fossils behind so if we found one that has all the characteristics, there were probably more species very much like it, which also had the same characteristics we should expect of the ancestor. Not all of them can be the ancestors of modern species, but all of them can be considered "candidates" but are more probably close cousins of the ancestors.

[Also, your claim that almost all genera is preserved is not true. Most of all species that ever existed don't leave any fossils and thus the fossils we have of a genus is a small representative of what would have existed. If you have like 5 species within the same genus (4 extinct and 1 extant), only one can be a direct ancestor of the rest, although the probability is that none of them are and that there were more species including the direct ancestor didn't left any fossils. Having fossils of a genus preserved in the fossil record does NOT mean you HAVE to have a fossil as direct ancestors.]


leroy wrote:the only assumption that I am making is that modern animals have more less the same chance of fossilization than direct ancestros. if nearly 100% of all the 1,000 modern mammalian genera was perceived, why don't we have similar numbers with assessors or candidates?


Okay, here lies the problem. Your assumption is wrong. By the simple fact that there were more species that are not direct ancestors than species that were direct ancestors means that most species that get fossilized are not direct ancestors. This has been explained to you.

leroy wrote:If there are more than 1,000 modern like mammal genera in the fossil record, why don't we find roughly the same amount of ancestors or at least candidates in the fossil record?.....why is the Fossil record so biased in perceiving modern like animals and so biased against perceiving ancestors or candidates?


It is not that it is biased, it is simply due to the fact that most species that ever lived are not direct ancestors and not all species that ever lived leaves fossils. By simple change alone, most fossils would not be direct ancestors. I am just repeating myself here.

And also, when you talked about specific cases like the ancestor of birds and that of humans and apes, I gave you these examples, Aurornis was one that fulfills every criteria you put forward.

Aurornis xui
Image

Apart from the paws, it has all the characters you listed. It is also considered more a basal to birds than Archaeopteryx (which means the common ancestor of birds and archaeopteryx is more recent than that of birds and Aurornis)

Like with chimps and humans, a few candidates have been found (though there is controversy on which one is the most likely, but it doesn't matter if they are candidates)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one:
Image

a less likely contender is Orrorin tugenensis

Another one is Ouranopithecus.

While the chimp/human ancestor is controversial, the candidate for the common ancestor of all great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans) is more certain.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Image

Not thousands, no, but we can and did find these.


So despite the odds against finding candidates for direct ancestors, we still have these that you flat out ignored and kept asking the same question of "why don't we find candidates". Well here are the ones you specifically asked for, you doofus.

leroy wrote:I am pretty sure this is a valid and legitimate question.


Well sorry, I and others have already showed that it is not.

leroy wrote:the only statement that I am making is that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry.........agree?
for example the fact that dolphins and bats use a similar system for echolocation does not imply common ancestry......... agree?


I have answered that HERE to you before.

leroy wrote:In response to Rumrakets question>
In a similar way, the fact that tiktaalik has fish and tetrapod traits does not necessary imply common ancestry


Yes it does. Transitional fossils is a prediction of common ancestry. This is what the people did when trying to look for this fossil. They researched what was already known, that fossils before this age was only fish and after this age there were the first tetrapods, so they looked in rock from the right age for a creature with specific characteristics and viola, there is Tiktaalik for you. A prediction based on common ancestry that was proven to be right does imply common ancestry.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:29 pm
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Stop pretending that the question has been answered, and answer it (or admit that you don't have an answer)

why are most ancestors (or candidates) missing in the fossil record?


you can not say that fossilization is rare, because most modern animals are found in the fossil record (at least most vertebrates ) if the fossil record is good in perceiving animals that are alive today, why isn't nearly as good in perceiving animals that lived in the past?


.......
I am not saying that there are no transitional fossils, I am not even rejecting that some of this transitions have the correct age and anatomy expected in a direct ancestor, I am not even suggesting that this is a knock out argument against evolution. it is just a simple and honest question.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:47 pm
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:The
I have answered that HERE to you before.

[.



Yes, and based on your answer it is obvious that you agree, similarities do not necessarily imply common ancestry,


Yes it does. Transitional fossils is a prediction of common ancestry. This is what the people did when trying to look for this fossil. They researched what was already known, that fossils before this age was only fish and after this age there were the first tetrapods, so they looked in rock from the right age for a creature with specific characteristics and viola, there is Tiktaalik for you. A prediction based on common ancestry that was proven to be right does imply common ancestry


granted, evolution made a correct prediction, but also evolution predicts that the oldest fishapood has to be older than the oldest tetrapod, based on the evidence that we have today, this prediction is wrong.


sometimes evolution makes correct predictions, sometimes it makes incorrect predictions, good indisputable theories make many correct predictions and few (if any) incorrect predictions.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:55 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:Stop pretending that the question has been answered, and answer it (or admit that you don't have an answer)


I am not pretending, I (nay, WE) have answered your questions several times. Why are you still pretending we didn't? And why are you pretending these candidate ancestors THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR!!! don't exist!!??

Aurornis xui
Image

Apart from the paws, it has all the characters you listed. It is also considered more a basal to birds than Archaeopteryx (which means the common ancestor of birds and archaeopteryx is more recent than that of birds and Aurornis)

Like with chimps and humans, a few candidates have been found (though there is controversy on which one is the most likely, but it doesn't matter if they are candidates)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one:
Image

a less likely contender is Orrorin tugenensis

Another one is Ouranopithecus.

While the chimp/human ancestor is controversial, the candidate for the common ancestor of all great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans) is more certain.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Image

Not thousands, no, but we can and did find these.


leroy wrote:why are most ancestors (or candidates) missing in the fossil record?

you can not say that fossilization is rare, because most modern animals are found in the fossil record (at least most vertebrates ) if the fossil record is good in perceiving animals that are alive today, why isn't nearly as good in perceiving animals that lived in the past?


Oh, so I did answer your question. You simply don't like to hear the answer. Fossils are indeed rare compared to what should have existed. We only found like a handful of T-rex for example, yet there should've been more than a handful. I also said more than that. The fact is that there are MORE distant cousins, than direct ancestors. Simply because there are MORE of the one that the later, means there is a greater change that the majority of the fossils that we have are not direct ancestors.

I already said this previously, and I also gave specific examples of candidate ancestors that you specifically asked for, so you have no excuse to accuse me of not answering your questions.

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:The
I have answered that HERE to you before.

[.



Yes, and based on your answer it is obvious that you agree, similarities do not necessarily imply common ancestry,


Quote mining, I said more than that. I also addressed your "dolphin/bat chimera claim", which is refuted.
And if you think I already agreed with you then why are you asking for it again?

leroy wrote:
Yes it does. Transitional fossils is a prediction of common ancestry. This is what the people did when trying to look for this fossil. They researched what was already known, that fossils before this age was only fish and after this age there were the first tetrapods, so they looked in rock from the right age for a creature with specific characteristics and viola, there is Tiktaalik for you. A prediction based on common ancestry that was proven to be right does imply common ancestry


granted, evolution made a correct prediction, but also evolution predicts that the oldest fishapood has to be older than the oldest tetrapod, based on the evidence that we have today, this prediction is wrong.


sometimes evolution makes correct predictions, sometimes it makes incorrect predictions, good indisputable theories make many correct predictions and few (if any) incorrect predictions.


No we do not necessarily expect that. For example dogs evolved form wolves yet we have examples of wolves that are not older than the oldest dog. The ancestral karyotype can exists along side the descendant group. So even if you are right that tiktaalik is not older than the oldest tetrapod, it is irrelevant. You think that evolution works as a ladder were one HAS to be older than the next, but it is not, it is a tree.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:56 am
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:I am not pretending, I (nay, WE) have answered your questions several times. Why are you still pretending we didn't? And why are you pretending these candidate ancestors THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR!!! don't exist!!??



reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

this is my question
why are most ancestors (or candidates) missing in the fossil record?

even if I grant that those few examples are direct ancestors, it is still a fact that most ancestros or candidates are not found in the fossil record


Oh, so I did answer your question. You simply don't like to hear the answer. Fossils are indeed rare compared to what should have existed. We only found like a handful of T-rex for example, yet there should've been more than a handful. I also said more than that. The fact is that there are MORE distant cousins, than direct ancestors. Simply because there are MORE of the one that the later, means there is a greater change that the majority of the fossils that we have are not direct ancestors.


if fossilization is rare, then why are most modern like animals present in the fossil record? why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern animals and very bad perceiving ancestors.

the fact that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals, and strongly suggests that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record. Therefore Most ancestors are expected to be found in the fossil record.



No we do not necessarily expect that. For example dogs evolved form wolves yet we have examples of wolves that are not older than the oldest dog. The ancestral karyotype can exists along side the descendant group. So even if you are right that tiktaalik is not older than the oldest tetrapod, it is irrelevant. You think that evolution works as a ladder were one HAS to be older than the next, but it is not, it is a tree.[



once again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

I said that the oldest fishapod is expect to be older than the oldest tetrapod,


If dogs evolved from wolves then the oldest wolf has to be older than the oldest dog, but sure this does not mean that any wolf is older than any dog.

stop pretending that I said something that I didn't, your problem is that you defend evolution in the same way a fanatic would defend his religion, you are unable to admit that our beloved theory of evolution sometimes makes incorrect predictions. I already admitted that evolution makes some correct predictions, why cant you admit that evolution also makes incorrect predictions?


Quote mining, I said more than that. I also addressed your "dolphin/bat chimera claim", which is refuted.
And if you think I already agreed with you then why are you asking for it again?
[/quote]

stop sending red hearings, I do not agree with everything you said, but we both agree that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:32 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:
this is my question
why are most ancestors (or candidates) missing in the fossil record?

even if I grant that those few examples are direct ancestors, it is still a fact that most ancestros or candidates are not found in the fossil record


I think you should be a little more specific with regards to which lineages you're talking about. For example, the bushy branch that leads to we humans has quite a large number of species discovered. Also when you say "most", are you talking numbers of specimens or species?



if fossilization is rare, then why are most modern like animals present in the fossil record? why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern animals and very bad perceiving ancestors.

the fact that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals, and strongly suggests that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record. Therefore Most ancestors are expected to be found in the fossil record.


Keep in mind that most of the modern specimens (for example mammoths and other Pleistocene critters are actual fossils in the "bone fully replaced due to mineralization" sense. Mammoth bones tend to be actual bones and not fossils of bones. Another factor you need to consider is time. Let's say you have an ancient environment that is perfect for fossilization from, say, 80 million years ago. Things die, get buried, fossilize, then 20 million years ago uplift brings that area to the surface where erosion occurs and effectively destroys the fossils exposed. What we have here is bad luck. We need ancient rocks containing fossils to not only be near the surface but to be near the surface recently enough that it hasn't eroded away destroying the booty it contained. And finally yes, environments that lend themselves to fossilization are indeed rare. There can be entire ecosystems that never produce a fossil no matter how many critters were alive during the time period which would "hide" the lifeforms of that ecosystem from us forever. So really it's not expected that "most ancestors" will be found in the fossil record. The further back in time you go the more challenging it can be to find exposed rock of the right time period that originally was in the right environment to actually produce fossils.




once again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

I said that the oldest fishapod is expect to be older than the oldest tetrapod,


If I recall correctly what you're talking about, you're talking about footprints in Germany thought to date older than Tiktaalik, is that correct? If so, I recall seeing that the dating of the sediment the footprints were found in is being questioned, so they may not be older than Tiktaalik. Besides, let's say there was a lineage before Tiktaalik that tried to make it on land and failed, then you have Tiktaalik's lineage with different adaptions making it onto land and succeeding. The earlier species could be a cousin to the line that lead to modern tetrapods and not considered actual tetrapods themselves.

If dogs evolved from wolves then the oldest wolf has to be older than the oldest dog, but sure this does not mean that any wolf is older than any dog.


Yes, wolved predate dogs.

stop pretending that I said something that I didn't, your problem is that you defend evolution in the same way a fanatic would defend his religion, you are unable to admit that our beloved theory of evolution sometimes makes incorrect predictions. I already admitted that evolution makes some correct predictions, why cant you admit that evolution also makes incorrect predictions?


Is he saying that? I don't think he's saying that... but I do think you have your words in the wrong order. People can use evolutionary theory and make incorrect predictions, it's not evolution making the predictions. Keep in mind this is with itty-bitty bits of the greater whole of evolution. If someone predicts that the split between, say, modern chimps and modern humans occurred "N" million years ago and it is shown to have happened "N-20" million years ago that doesn't mean evolution is invalid, it just means someone made an incorrect prediction and based on the new knowledge evolutionary theory will be revised. It also would have nothing to do with accurate predictions made, such as the one that lead to the discovery of Tiktaalik.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:57 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:I am not pretending, I (nay, WE) have answered your questions several times. Why are you still pretending we didn't? And why are you pretending these candidate ancestors THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR!!! don't exist!!??


reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed


So you are deliberately ignoring the things that I provided, which you specifically asked for.

Remember what you said:
YOU wrote:for example the common ancestor between archaeopteryx and modern like birds would have to be>.>>

Correct age> older than the oldest and older than the oldest bird, but younger than the firsts tetrapod dinosaurs.

Correct anatomy> with bony tail, teeth, paws, without fully formed feathers, less aerodynamic than archaeopteryx, not reversed toe, an obturator process of the ischium etc,


And this (below) perfectly meets every criteria that you put here (except of course for the paws, maybe you meant claws)

Aurornis xui
Image


And also this

YOU wrote:for example
since we find chimps and humans in the fossil record, we would also expect to find our direct ancestor plus many other candidates......why cant we find them?....I Can grant that it would be impossible to tell the difference between a ancestor and a cousin candidate but we don't find any of them.........why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern like humans and chimps and very bad in preserving candidates?


for which I gave
Like with chimps and humans, a few candidates have been found (though there is controversy on which one is the most likely, but it doesn't matter if they are candidates)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one:
Image

a less likely contender is Orrorin tugenensis

Another one is Ouranopithecus.

While the chimp/human ancestor is controversial, the candidate for the common ancestor of all great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans) is more certain.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Image

Not thousands, no, but we can and did find these.


So if you asked for these, why are you trying so hard to ignore them?? Do you only ask questions you don't like to hear the answer to??

You know, while I am going to answer your question (again) I demand to get at least an acknowledgement for the things that I have provided to you.

Admit that I have provided one example for the bird lineage that meet the criteria, for a candidate ancestor, you laid out yourself
and
admit that I have provided several examples of candidates for the human/chimp ancestors.

If you wonder "why I am so demanding for an acknowledgement", that is because I am only willing to answer the questions of and/or having a discussion with those who have some credibility, honesty and sincerity.

I am not going spend my own free time to do the research for someone else, if my answers get gnored. I have played that game of "duck and dodge" with someone else (two in fact: Joebob5 and Almost Atheist) and I am damn tired of having such discussions.

If you want me to still take you seriously, as a person who is honestly asking questions, then acknowledge these points.

If are not a sincere person and is only asking questions while ignoring all answers, than I have no interest to continue the conversation and I have some advice for you.
Image

leroy wrote:this is my question
why are most ancestors (or candidates) missing in the fossil record?

even if I grant that those few examples are [candidates] direct ancestors, it is still a fact that most ancestros or candidates are not found in the fossil record


Though you still have not granted that those are candidate (I put that in there, I won't let you shift the goal post), remember that.

leroy wrote:if fossilization is rare, then why are most modern like animals present in the fossil record? why is the fossil record so good in preserving modern animals and very bad perceiving ancestors.


I did answer that HERE
It is not that it is biased, it is simply due to the fact that most species that ever lived are not direct ancestors and not all species that ever lived leaves fossils. By simple change alone, most fossils would not be direct ancestors. I am just repeating myself here.


And I am repeating my repeat.

leroy wrote:the fact that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals, and strongly suggests that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record. Therefore Most ancestors are expected to be found in the fossil record.


There are so many things wrong with this statement. Even if taken the first premise "most modern animals are found in the fossil record" as true the conclusion "strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals" does not follow and especially not the conclusion "most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record" which is plainly false.

For one thing, bear in mind that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There are an estimated amount of over 1.5 million species of animals, and almost 60.000 of them are vertebrates alone. So an underestimated amount of 6.000.000 species of vertebrates that ever lived for which now are 60.000 left, thus 5.400.000 extinct species of vertebrates (at a bear minimum estimation). Howe many species of vertebrates do you think we have in the fossil record?? Well to give you a hint, the number of species in the fossil record is about 5% compared to the known extant species that are now known, which is 8.7 million. Which is little less han 500.000 (which is an over-estimation) species in the fossil record and not all of them would be vertebrate species. That is a lot, but not enough to support your conclusion. Thus the statement that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil records is clearly
Image

And another thing, even if you were right that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, the conclusions don't follow because one (as someone else already pointed out before i could) the longer something is fossilized, the greater the change that the the fossil is destroyed because of erosion or gets buried to deep such that it is inaccessible to us.

Most of our fossils that we have are found at rock layers exposed on the surface and exposed rock layers are harder to find if they are older.

But even after that, most of the species we have in the fossil record are NOT modern species, or at least it depends on what you mean by "modern". If modern means the species that are still alive (or at least were alive like a few thousand years ago, such that we don't ignore animals like the dodo) then, no, most species we have in the fossil record are not modern and most modern animals are not in the fossil record. Preserved remains of modern animals are often not even fossils. Like mammoths, which are extinct but still sort of "modern" (depending on how strict your criteria is) are often not fossilized.

Of course you could twist the meaning of modern such that you can move the goal post however you like. Just like how creationists claim that all modern animals appeared "suddenly" during the Cambrian explosion, while they are only talking about "phyla" which is a high taxonomic rank, such that it includes many animals that are definitively NOT modern such that no creationist would admit that any of the Cambrian fauna are related to modern forms, because they don't want to admit that macro evolution is really a thing.

Today we have modern members of taxonomic groups that have existed for a very long time, but many of them are all but extinct, leaving a slimmer of surviving lineages of what once was.

For example we have modern amphibians like Salamanders and Frogs, but we don't have many frogamanders.

Gerobatrachus
Image

And we have modern carnivores like dogs and bears, but no longer any "Dog-Bears" (Hemicyoninae)

Hemicyon
Image

Nor "Bear-Dogs" (Amphicyonidae)

Amphicyon
Image

We still have snakes, though we don't have any that have four limbs

Tetrapodophis amplectus
Image

nor even two

Haasiophis
Image

And this doesn't really count, because it is not a snake
Image

The same goes for Manatees

Pezosirin
Image

And Whales
Image

Even zooming out at larger taxonomic groups, we do have modern synapsid (which are only mammals), but we no longer have their "reptile-like" relatives
Image

And we have modern Diapsids (true reptiles) such as Lizards (squamates) and Crocodiles, but we no longer have many marine varieties of them anymore, like

Mosasaurs (largest lizard ever discovered)
Image

Marine crocodiles (with actual flukes and flippers)
Image

Nor all those marine reptiles that are completely gone, leaving no close relatives. like

Ichthyosaurs
Image

and Plesiosaurs
Image

We also have modern birds, the last lineage of living Dinosaurs, while the rest are all gone.
Image

Birds are also the last surviving lineage of Archosaurs that contain members capable of flight, now that the pterosaurs are all extinct.
Image

But as you can see, none of these are "modern"

leroy wrote:granted, evolution made a correct prediction [with regard to tiktaalik], but also evolution predicts that the oldest fishapood has to be older than the oldest tetrapod, based on the evidence that we have today, this prediction is wrong.

No we do not necessarily expect that. For example dogs evolved form wolves yet we have examples of wolves that are not older than the oldest dog. The ancestral karyotype can exists along side the descendant group. So even if you are right that tiktaalik is not older than the oldest tetrapod, it is irrelevant. You think that evolution works as a ladder were one HAS to be older than the next, but it is not, it is a tree.


once again reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

I said that the oldest fishapod is expect to be older than the oldest tetrapod,


When I was addressing this statement, I didn't had much time, so I took your statement "that the oldest fishapod in the fossil record is not older than the oldest tetrapod" for granted. But now I will address it more thoroughly.

What I was referring to was that we do not necessarily expect that the oldest fishapod in the fossil record to be older than the oldest tetrapod in the fossil record, though tiktaalik is older than any known actual tetrapod in the fossil record, with the exception of some tracks that are interpreted to be that of tetrapods, though they don't have to be of tetrapods nor of that age (someone else pointed that the age of the tracks were in question). But even if I granted that they are genuine tracks of land lumbering vertebrates of an older age than that of tiktaalik, my point still stands.

Tiktaalik could live side by side with a fully derived tetrapod for the same reason that a wolf can live alongside with a derived domestic dog.
So making a straw man prediction and pretend that it is a prediction of evolution, even taken as legit, doesn't invalidate tiktaalik being a genuine transitional form nor common ancestry in general.

It is also possible that those tracks are from vertebrates of a different lineage of that made their transition onto land earlier than actual tetrapods.

Here is an example of a lineage of vertebrates that are not tetrapods, yet made it onto land and are leaving their tracks in the mud as we speak.
Image

leroy wrote:If dogs evolved from wolves then the oldest wolf has to be older than the oldest dog, but sure this does not mean that any wolf is older than any dog.


And because of this very reason, it doesn't necessarily mean we should find wolves that are older than dogs in the fossil record (though we do, but we don't have to). Just like it doesn't mean we should find fishapods that are older than the earliest tetrapods in the fossil record (though we do, but we don't have to).

leroy wrote:stop pretending that I said something that I didn't, your problem is that you defend evolution in the same way a fanatic would defend his religion,


Oh my, aren't you projecting
Image

leroy wrote:you are unable to admit that our beloved theory of evolution sometimes makes incorrect predictions. I already admitted that evolution makes some correct predictions, why cant you admit that evolution also makes incorrect predictions?


Because you haven't pointed out any of such predictions that I can even admit to. Though I am willing to admit to if you can present one that is not a straw man prediction that evolution doesn't really predict. You may think that your "prediction" is legit, but as I have already pointed out
Image
Evolutie is not a ladder, it is a tree.

But even if there were legit predictions that turned out to be in error, that wouldn't mean much. I know that there are theories which made terrible predictions, yet no one really disputes (never say no one, flat earthers are the exceptional stupid) like gravity

Image
Newton's theory was first questioned in 1859, when French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier showed that Mercury's orbit could not be explained by Newton's equations http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Newtons- ... avity.html


Though we didn't float out into space when we found that Newton made a wrong prediction.
Though Einstein's theory of relativity (our modern theory of gravity) makes up for this error, it is incompatible with Quantum mechanics, which itself is also an incomplete theory since it cannot account for gravity for this reason. And Quantum mechanics also has a wrong prediction, THE worst prediction in fact, called the vacuum catastrophe.

Yet Quantum mechanics and The theory of relativity are both essential in our modern technology, without relativity GPS wouldn't work and without quantum mechanics, we would not have smart phones nor computers.

Yet The theory of evolution doesn't have this problem, it has never failed any test (so far I am aware of), and there are things that only evolution form common ancestry can account for. And just like many other theories, it has real world applications that would not work (of would not be as sophisticated) without the theory that unifies biology. Applications in fields such as medicine, agriculture and biotechnology and even computer technology with genetic algorithms. This makes evolution one of the strongest theories in science.

In short:


leroy wrote:
Quote mining, I said more than that. I also addressed your "dolphin/bat chimera claim", which is refuted.
And if you think I already agreed with you then why are you asking for it again?


stop sending red hearings, I do not agree with everything you said, but we both agree that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry.


This was not a red herring (not hearings), your dolphin/bat comparison was specifically used to back up your statement that "similarity does not necessary imply common ancestry" (see below). So stop ignoring this as if it is irrelevant.

Also stop quote mining me and read what I have said about this "similarity ≠ common ancestry" issue

leroy wrote:we do find animals with shared characteristics of 2 different clades, there is no mystery about that. for example marsupial wolves share characteristics with kangaroos and dogs, dolphins share characteristics with bats and whales...........and none of this similarities are due to common descent.


Well it depends on what characteristics you are talking about. The fact that all of them have backbones, Mammary glands, inner ear bones, hair (in some for or another, some whales still have tiny hairs) or just are mammals. Than that is due to common descent.

thylacines have more things in common with Kangaroos than with dogs. The fact that they are superficially similar to dogs doesn't mean much, whit regard to phylogeny. We can tell that for the same reason we can tell that bats are not more closely related to birds than to other mammals, despite both having wings. To you it may be obvious that bats are not close to birds, but I know people who have think that bats are birds, because they fly.

Most people have no idea how to classify life forms. Some just do it the easy way, by what they do or what general capability they have like flight. If it flies it is a birds so bats are birds. If it swims it is a fish, so whales are fish (yes many people still think that whales are fish, although I think that whales are technically fish but not for the same reason). If you classified life forms based on wether they have wings, then bats, birds, bees would be in the same category. But the fact still remains that the wings themselves are different. Their anatomy is not the same despite being used for the same purpose.

You have to learn more about anatomy and physiology to know how to do taxonomy.

Thylacines look on the outside like dogs just like dolphins look like sharks or the glass snake looks like a snake (but it is a legless skink not a snake).

The Thylacine/Dog comparison has been used to challenge homology as evidence for evolution in the Pandas book, which that was close to being used to push "intelligent design" in the classrooms of America. During the Dover trial in 2005, this argument was examined and pretty much exposed, better then I could ever do here, for what it is. Bunk
https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/dire ... homology-a

As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted HERE

Wait....wait....hold on.....YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!!!!

leroy wrote:similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry........agree?


No, but shared diagnostic traits do [more specifically: derived synapomorphies]. For example the fact that we all have the diagnostic traits that define what a mammal is, makes us more closer to all other mammals than to non-mammals. And it isn't just similarities, it is the pattern by which they occur.
Image

And we see the same in the genome as well.


leroy wrote:so I guess my answer would be that, an intelligent designer could have created creatures that have stuff in common with one group of animals and stuff in common with some other group, sometimes this similarities correspond to evolutionary predictions, sometimes they don't.


They always do. And I don't say "similarities" I clarify it as shared traits. Wings are not proper traits since wings can have drastically different anatomy from species who have evolved it independently. This is one way we can tell wether "similarity" is due to homology or analogy.

This is a superb video that best explains why the "similarity doesn't prove common ancestry, it can also point toward a common designer!" fails.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:
leroy wrote:you are unable to admit that our beloved theory of evolution sometimes makes incorrect predictions. I already admitted that evolution makes some correct predictions, why cant you admit that evolution also makes incorrect predictions?


Because you haven't pointed out any of such predictions that I can even admit to. Though I am willing to admit to if you can present one that is not a straw man prediction that evolution doesn't really predict. You may think that your "prediction" is legit, but as I have already pointed out
Image
Evolutie is not a ladder, it is a tree.


Beyond this, if there is a failing, the failing lies with the fossil record being incomplete and not of evolutionary theory. Oh, and those footprints were also not made on land as we normally think of it, but more like what the mud-skippers walk on.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:51 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:[

So you are deliberately ignoring the things that I provided, which you specifically asked for.


As I told you earlier, it is irrelevant, I am not arguing that there are no canddates I am arguing that we do not find as many as one might expect......the examples provided are controversial, but for the sake of this conversation I would grant that they are candidates. It is still a fact that most candidates are not found in the fossil record.


Keep in mind that I am truly asking a question, I am not trying to present a case against evolution.




So if you asked for these, why are you trying so hard to ignore them?? Do you only ask questions you don't like to hear the answer to??


Because the point that I am trying to make is that candidates are not as abundant as expected, no one is denying that some candidates exist. The examples that you presented are arguable not candidates, but even if they where, It would be irrelevant.


If I expose the reasons why I think these are not good examples of candidates, I would move the conversation far away from my original question.


.
Though you still have not granted that those are candidate (I put that in there, I won't let you shift the goal post), remember that.


I am not shifting any goal post, since the very first time I asked the question my concern was about the amount of candidates, not that there are no candidates.

[

I did answer that HERE
It is not that it is biased, it is simply due to the fact that most species that ever lived are not direct ancestors and not all species that ever lived leaves fossils. By simple change alone, most fossils would not be direct ancestors. I am just repeating myself here.


Not sure if I agree, but it is irrelevant,


There are so many things wrong with this statement. Even if taken the first premise "most modern animals are found in the fossil record" as true the conclusion "strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals" does not follow and especially not the conclusion "most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record" which is plainly false.


how do you know it is false?

For one thing, bear in mind that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There are an estimated amount of over 1.5 million species of animals, and almost 60.000 of them are vertebrates alone. So an underestimated amount of 6.000.000 species of vertebrates that ever lived for which now are 60.000 left, thus 5.400.000 extinct species of vertebrates (at a bear minimum estimation). Howe many species of vertebrates do you think we have in the fossil record?? Well to give you a hint, the number of species in the fossil record is about 5% compared to the known extant species that are now known, which is 8.7 million. Which is little less han 500.000 (which is an over-estimation) species in the fossil record and not all of them would be vertebrate species. That is a lot, but not enough to support your conclusion. Thus the statement that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil records is clearly


How do you know that those numbers are correct, specially the 99% that you mentioned?


And another thing, even if you were right that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, the conclusions don't follow because one (as someone else already pointed out before i could) the longer something is fossilized, the greater the change that the the fossil is destroyed because of erosion or gets buried to deep such that it is inaccessible to us
.


ok so can erosión account for the lack of candidates?




Most of our fossils that we have are found at rock layers exposed on the surface and exposed rock layers are harder to find if they are older.


Maybe, but millions of old fossils have been found,

are fossils more abundant in recent layers than in old layers? do we find more fossils in the Jurassic than in the Cambrian?

But even after that, most of the species we have in the fossil record are NOT modern species, or at least it depends on what you mean by "modern".



Maybe, but that Is not what I am saying, I said that most modern species are found in the fossil record, or at least most modern genera are found in the fossil record.

With modern I mean any animal that belongs to any non extinct genera (even if that particular specie has gone extinct)

Of course you could twist the meaning of modern such that you can move the goal post however you like. Just like how creationists claim that all modern animals appeared "suddenly" during the Cambrian explosion, while they are only talking about "phyla" which is a high taxonomic rank, such that it includes many animals that are definitively NOT modern such that no creationist would admit that any of the Cambrian fauna are related to modern forms, because they don't want to admit that macro evolution is really a thing.


I haven't heard any creationists making that claim, in my experience they usually clarify that they are talking about phyla. No creationist in my experience have ever claimed that modern dogs are found in the Cambrian.

besides, I think it is a pretty good question that requires an explanation, why do we see this explosion of life, rather than a slow and gradual progression? .........I am not saying that there are no potential responses to this, but it is still a very good question and no definitive answer has ever been provided.




Tiktaalik could live side by side with a fully derived tetrapod for the same reason that a wolf can live alongside with a derived domestic dog.


yes, granted, but what makes you think that I disagree?



It is also possible that those tracks are from vertebrates of a different lineage of that made their transition onto land earlier than actual tetrapods



yes it is possible, and it is also possible that ancient aliens visited the planet and this tracks belong to their 4 legged pets. this is not about finding possibilities, it is about finding the best explanation.

in this particular case, all the evidence indicates that this are tetrapod footprints, until proven otherwise, we most assume that these are tetrapod footprints. is any good reason to think otherwise?
this are the footprints I am talking about https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114420.htm from Poland, not Germany, I AM


Because you haven't pointed out any of such predictions that I can even admit to. Though I am willing to admit to if you can present one that is not a straw man prediction that evolution doesn't really predict. You may think that your "prediction" is legit, but as I have already pointed out


the theory of evolution predicts that the oldest fishapods predate the oldest tetrapods (agree?)

We find the oposite in the fossil record (agree?)


therefore evolution made an incorrect prediction. as simple as that.



But even if there were legit predictions that turned out to be in error, that wouldn't mean much. I know that there are theories which made terrible predictions, yet no one really disputes (never say no one, flat earthers are the exceptional stupid) like gravity



granted, no one is saying that we should drop the theory of evolution just because it made an incorrect prediction, but it works both ways, the same applies when we happen to have a correct prediction.

you seem to make a big deal because you made a correct prediction regarding tiktaalik, but when you face an incorrect prediction, you seem to minimize it, this is a double standard.

so in regards to the original question about tiktaalik, I would say that YES we did find what evolution predicted, but making a correct prediction is not a big deal, given that there are millions and millions of fossils, it is not very surprising to find 3 or 4 fossils in the expected order.



Yet The theory of evolution doesn't have this problem, it has never failed any test (so far I am aware of), and there are things that only evolution form common ancestry can account for. And just like many other theories, it has real world applications that would not work (of would not be as sophisticated) without the theory that unifies biology. Applications in fields such as medicine, agriculture and biotechnology and even computer technology with genetic algorithms. This makes evolution one of the strongest theories in science.



can you name an application that would only work is evolution (common ancestry) where true?


This was not a red herring (not hearings), your dolphin/bat comparison was specifically used to back up your statement that "similarity does not necessary imply common ancestry" (see below). So stop ignoring this as if it is irrelevant.


it is not relevant, we both agree that bats and dolphins have similarities related to echolocation and we both agree that this similarities are not due to common ancestry.


Well it depends on what characteristics you are talking about. The fact that all of them have backbones, Mammary glands, inner ear bones, hair (in some for or another, some whales still have tiny hairs) or just are mammals. Than that is due to common descent.


but the similarities in proteins related to echolocation are not due to common ancestry.........agree?..........BTW this is an other example of an incorrect prediction, it is not a big deal, all theories make incorrect predictions, but it is a bit arrogant to say that evolution doesn't make any incorrect prediction.

thylacines have more things in common with Kangaroos than with dogs. The fact that they are superficially similar to dogs doesn't mean much, whit regard to phylogeny. We can tell that for the same reason we can tell that bats are not more closely related to birds than to other mammals, despite both having wings. To you it may be obvious that bats are not close to birds, but I know people who have think that bats are birds, because they fly.


so what, it is still a fact that they have dog like atributes, that are not due to common ancestry. we both agree that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry, so why are you pushing on this?

Most people have no idea how to classify life forms. Some just do it the easy way, by what they do or what general capability they have like flight. If it flies it is a birds so bats are birds. If it swims it is a fish, so whales are fish (yes many people still think that whales are fish, although I think that whales are technically fish but not for the same reason). If you classified life forms based on wether they have wings, then bats, birds, bees would be in the same category. But the fact still remains that the wings themselves are different. Their anatomy is not the same despite being used for the same purpose.



yes and so what?

I don't what to sound picky but whales are not fish..............fish is not a clade
You have to learn more about anatomy and physiology to know how to do taxonomy.


in fact I do understand it, and the fact that you misclassified whales as fish, strongly suggests that I understand this much better than you.

Thylacines look on the outside like dogs just like dolphins look like sharks or the glass snake looks like a snake (but it is a legless skink not a snake).


yes and this similarities are not due to common ancestry..........agree?

The Thylacine/Dog comparison has been used to challenge homology as evidence for evolution in the Pandas book, which that was close to being used to push "intelligent design" in the classrooms of America. During the Dover trial in 2005, this argument was examined and pretty much exposed, better then I could ever do here, for what it is. Bunk


I cant speak for the autor of that book, but I am simply presenting thylacine dog comparason as an example of similarities that do not imply common ancestry, no one is saying that we should group thylasines and dogs together.

As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted



but we both agree that these similarities are not due to common ancestry right?

just for the record, the bat dophins similarties, are similarities at a genetic level, this is not analogous to the wings in bees, bats and birds.



No, but shared diagnostic traits do [more specifically: derived synapomorphies]. For example the fact that we all have the diagnostic traits that define what a mammal is, makes us more closer to all other mammals than to non-mammals. And it isn't just similarities, it is the pattern by which they occur.



disagree, but irrelevant, tiktaalik does not have any diagnostic traits anyway, so who cares if diagnostic traits imply common ancestry.

you seem to be loosing the context of the conversation, all this discussion about similarities was to show that the fact that tiktaalik has tetrapod like structures, does not necessary imply that tetrapods came from tiktaalik,


And we see the same in the genome as well.


disagree but irrelevant, no one has seen tiktaliks genes anyway. remember the original question was about tiktaalik,


They always do. And I don't say "similarities" I clarify it as shared traits. Wings are not proper traits since wings can have drastically different anatomy from species who have evolved it independently. This is one way we can tell wether "similarity" is due to homology or analogy.


why wouldn't a designer create animals with traits that are common in other groups of animals?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:54 pm
leroyPosts: 1093Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

I wont reply not comment on anything that is not related to my original question .....why are most ancestors missing? feel free not to respond to all the comments that I made on my last post that are not related to the question.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:I wont reply not comment on anything that is not related to my original question .....why are most ancestors missing? feel free not to respond to all the comments that I made on my last post that are not related to the question.


SpecialFrog on September 24, 2015 wrote:The fossil record represents probably around two hundred and fifty thousand species. Given that there are are four and a half million living species, this represents a fraction of a percent of all species who have ever lived. It would be statistically unlikely for this to include any direct ancestors. Even if it did, we cannot tell conclusively whether any fossil is a direct ancestor of a living species given the limits of DNA preservation.


:docpalm:
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:26 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 210Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:
So you are deliberately ignoring the things that I provided, which you specifically asked for.


As I told you earlier, it is irrelevant, I am not arguing that there are no canddates I am arguing that we do not find as many as one might expect......the examples provided are controversial, but for the sake of this conversation I would grant that they are candidates. It is still a fact that most candidates are not found in the fossil record.


Okay so you grant that those are candidate ancestors.

leroy wrote:Keep in mind that I am truly asking a question, I am not trying to present a case against evolution.


I have doubts about that. Since you are trying to ignore and distort everything I wrote into something that I didn't say like reducing the entire explanation of this "similarity doesn't mean common ancestry" question you asked me (for like a how many times, I lost counts) to something like this

So you agree that similarity doesn't always imply common ancestry


That is not truly asking questions honestly, that is "just asking questions" (emphasis on the quotes, click on this to find what I mean)

leroy wrote:
So if you asked for these, why are you trying so hard to ignore them?? Do you only ask questions you don't like to hear the answer to??


Because the point that I am trying to make is that candidates are not as abundant as expected,


And my point is that your expectation is flawed as I have explained.

leroy wrote:the fact that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals, and strongly suggests that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record. Therefore Most ancestors are expected to be found in the fossil record.


There are so many things wrong with this statement. Even if taken the first premise "most modern animals are found in the fossil record" as true the conclusion "strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals" does not follow and especially not the conclusion "most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record" which is plainly false.

For one thing, bear in mind that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There are an estimated amount of over 1.5 million species of animals, and almost 60.000 of them are vertebrates alone. So an underestimated amount of 6.000.000 species of vertebrates that ever lived for which now are 60.000 left, thus 5.400.000 extinct species of vertebrates (at a bear minimum estimation). Howe many species of vertebrates do you think we have in the fossil record?? Well to give you a hint, the number of species in the fossil record is about 5% compared to the known extant species that are now known, which is 8.7 million. Which is little less han 500.000 (which is an over-estimation) species in the fossil record and not all of them would be vertebrate species. That is a lot, but not enough to support your conclusion. Thus the statement that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil records is clearly
Image

And another thing, even if you were right that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, the conclusions don't follow because one (as someone else already pointed out before i could) the longer something is fossilized, the greater the change that the the fossil is destroyed because of erosion or gets buried to deep such that it is inaccessible to us.

Most of our fossils that we have are found at rock layers exposed on the surface and exposed rock layers are harder to find if they are older.

But even after that, most of the species we have in the fossil record are NOT modern species, or at least it depends on what you mean by "modern". If modern means the species that are still alive (or at least were alive like a few thousand years ago, such that we don't ignore animals like the dodo) then, no, most species we have in the fossil record are not modern and most modern animals are not in the fossil record. Preserved remains of modern animals are often not even fossils. Like mammoths, which are extinct but still sort of "modern" (depending on how strict your criteria is) are often not fossilized.

Of course you could twist the meaning of modern such that you can move the goal post however you like. Just like how creationists claim that all modern animals appeared "suddenly" during the Cambrian explosion, while they are only talking about "phyla" which is a high taxonomic rank, such that it includes many animals that are definitively NOT modern such that no creationist would admit that any of the Cambrian fauna are related to modern forms, because they don't want to admit that macro evolution is really a thing.

Today we have modern members of taxonomic groups that have existed for a very long time, but many of them are all but extinct, leaving a slimmer of surviving lineages of what once was.


leroy wrote:no one is denying that some candidates exist.


Though you denied or rather avoided the candidates that you specifically asked for, such that you would not face the embarrassment of either denying which would expose you as someone who is not just asking question, or to admit you errors.

leroy wrote:The examples that you presented are arguable not candidates,


But you just granted that they are candidates. The hell is wrong with you??

leroy wrote:but even if they where, It would be irrelevant.


If a person keeps saying (again and again) that "candidate ancestors are missing while we should expect more candidates" and at the same time talks about examples of lineages (like the human/chimp ancestor and the bird/archaeopteryx ancestor) whose candidate ancestors were supposedly missing,

THEN that means that giving the very candidates to the guy (who explicitly said that these don't exists), IS VERY RELEVANT!

And if the guy keeps trying to ignore, dismiss or pretend that these examples are not relevant (while he himself asked for these examples in the first place),

THEN that means that this guy is completely dishonest, deliberately obtuse and thus not worth having a serious discussion with.

leroy wrote:If I expose the reasons why I think these are not good examples of candidates, I would move the conversation far away from my original question.


Translation, it would go in a direction you would not like to go, since that would expose that your dishonesty. And I thought you granted that the examples I gave, yet you have now said (twice) that you really don't think they are real, in other words you are still in denial and the statement in which you granted that these are legit candidates is made meaningless now.

I am seriously considering that I should let this go, and I am wondering wether I should have done that a long time ago. Because you clearly don't have the intention to have an honest discussion, despite your repeated statement that you are "honestly, just asking questions"

leroy wrote:
I did answer that HERE
It is not that it is biased, it is simply due to the fact that most species that ever lived are not direct ancestors and not all species that ever lived leaves fossils. By simple change alone, most fossils would not be direct ancestors. I am just repeating myself here.


Not sure if I agree, but it is irrelevant,


Are you stupid? Or as I said you are being deliberately obtuse. Most fossils would not be ancestors and most species that have ever existed are not fossilized, thus your expectation of many ancestors is flawed.

I have given a more thorough explanation for why your expectation is flawed.

leroy wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this statement. Even if taken the first premise "most modern animals are found in the fossil record" as true the conclusion "strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals" does not follow and especially not the conclusion "most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record" which is plainly false.


how do you know it is false?


If you would learn not to quote mine, you would know why you are wrong. Also basic paleontology, an understanding of the process of fossilization which would show that most animals and thereby most species would not leave any fossils, especially if you are talking about older fossils (the greater the age, the greater the chance it will get destroyed or buried out of reach, explained this already) and also logic 101 about what a non sequitur is, would pretty much show that without my help

leroy wrote:
For one thing, bear in mind that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There are an estimated amount of over 1.5 million species of animals, and almost 60.000 of them are vertebrates alone. So an underestimated amount of 6.000.000 species of vertebrates that ever lived for which now are 60.000 left, thus 5.400.000 extinct species of vertebrates (at a bear minimum estimation). Howe many species of vertebrates do you think we have in the fossil record?? Well to give you a hint, the number of species in the fossil record is about 5% compared to the known extant species that are now known, which is 8.7 million. Which is little less han 500.000 (which is an over-estimation) species in the fossil record and not all of them would be vertebrate species. That is a lot, but not enough to support your conclusion. Thus the statement that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil records is clearly


How do you know that those numbers are correct, specially the 99% that you mentioned?


This is pretty well known fact, a basic principle in paleontology. But if you are in denial here can I give something that you will ignore just as you have ignored my examples of candidates.

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=4LHnCA ... &q&f=false


Or ask some biologists
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers ... php?id=556

Raup, DM, 1992, pp.3-4 wrote:
There are millions of different species of animals and plants on eart - possibly as many as fourty million. But somewhere between five and fisfty billion species have existed at one time or another. Thus unly one in a thousand species is still alive - a truly lousy survival record: 99.9% failure.


The 99% is really an understatement, it is more likely about 99.999999 etc. But I will be charitable and give the 99% or 99.9% range.

leroy wrote:
And another thing, even if you were right that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, the conclusions don't follow because one (as someone else already pointed out before i could) the longer something is fossilized, the greater the change that the the fossil is destroyed because of erosion or gets buried to deep such that it is inaccessible to us
.

ok so can erosión account for the lack of candidates?


Erosion can account for why there are not many candidates to the extent you are expecting when you said
the fact that most modern animals are found in the fossil record, strongly suggests that the fossil record is good in perceiving animals, and strongly suggests that most animals that have ever lived are found in the fossil record. Therefore Most ancestors are expected to be found in the fossil record.


Not the lack of candidates, because we do have plenty of candidates, but no amount will be enough to your satisfaction. How can I expect anything different if the ones that you specifically asked for don't satisfy you.

leroy wrote:
Most of our fossils that we have are found at rock layers exposed on the surface and exposed rock layers are harder to find if they are older.


Maybe, but millions of old fossils have been found,


Old is relative. All fossils are old, since it takes quite a long time for something to get fossilized. Look up the younger fossils on google and many of them are only partially fossilized, yet many of them are older than any young earth creationists would admit to. And Millions?? I am not sure about that, but even so. How does this invalidate that the older the fossil is, the more likely it is inaccessible to us, because the longer the fossil exists, the greater the chance it gets destroyed or buried so deep in the rock.

In summation,

Most species that ever existed are not ancestors, which accounts for why most fossils that we have are not considered ancestors.

most species don't leave any fossils, which accounts for why most candidate ancestors (or even all species in general) that should have existed are missing.

Most fossils are not recovered, especially the older ones that have a greater change to be destroyed or buried too deep in the rock. Most fossils that we discover are found in exposed rock layers on the surface and exposed rock layers are rarer if they are older for the same reason (the longer something exists, the greater the change that it gets destroyed or buried to deeply) which accounts for why "modern" (emphasis on the quotes) animals are more abundant in the fossil.

This summation answers your questions, and each of those 3 points have been repeatedly explained, so we don't have to go over it again and again.

leroy wrote:are fossils more abundant in recent layers than in old layers? do we find more fossils in the Jurassic than in the Cambrian?


Read what I wrote, the older the rock layers, the rarer they are exposed on the surface. For example the rock layers that are close to the surface dating back to the Jurassic are more common than the ones dating to the Cambrian period.

If you found a two rock layers of these dates, they both might contain the same amount of fossils per cubic mile (though other factors like what kind of environment that promotes or inhibits fossilization would imply otherwise), but since Jurassic rock layers are more common on the surface we do have more fossils from the Jurassic.

And also most life during the Cambrian was aquatic, so any rock layers that are exposed dating back to the Cambrian would not have many fossils in them if the rocks formed on dry land.

You know, I am not a paleontologist, but even I can understand this. What stops you?
Image
Oh, that's why.

leroy wrote:
But even after that, most of the species we have in the fossil record are NOT modern species, or at least it depends on what you mean by "modern".


Maybe, but that Is not what I am saying, I said that most modern species are found in the fossil record, or at least most modern genera are found in the fossil record.


The same explanation can work with "modern" genera.

leroy wrote:With modern I mean any animal that belongs to any non extinct genera (even if that particular specie has gone extinct)


Okay, so you are applying modern to a large taxonomic group, such that any species that is classified under the same genus as extant species are thus modern, so you must think that Homo erectus (one of our ancestors btw) are modern. Oh, that doesn't seem to good for your position.

About the larger taxonomic groups, that is what I also have addressed previously (below)

leroy wrote:
Of course you could twist the meaning of modern such that you can move the goal post however you like. Just like how creationists claim that all modern animals appeared "suddenly" during the Cambrian explosion, while they are only talking about "phyla" which is a high taxonomic rank, such that it includes many animals that are definitively NOT modern such that no creationist would admit that any of the Cambrian fauna are related to modern forms, because they don't want to admit that macro evolution is really a thing.


I haven't heard any creationists making that claim, in my experience they usually clarify that they are talking about phyla. No creationist in my experience have ever claimed that modern dogs are found in the Cambrian.


And I didn't say that modern dogs appeared during the Cambrian. They don't because that would just show how stupid they really are to anyone, but they have to be as vague as possible such that no one can call them out on their bullshit.

That is why they will say things like "the major animal forms appear in the form that they currently have today" (Jonathan Wells)


leroy wrote:besides, I think it is a pretty good question that requires an explanation, why do we see this explosion of life, rather than a slow and gradual progression? .........I am not saying that there are no potential responses to this, but it is still a very good question and no definitive answer has ever been provided.


That question is basically answered by Thunderf00t here above (which I have put there before I have read your question about the Cambrian explosion.

Here is a longer refutation done by PZ myers.


leroy wrote:
Tiktaalik could live side by side with a fully derived tetrapod for the same reason that a wolf can live alongside with a derived domestic dog.


yes, granted, but what makes you think that I disagree?


Because that refutes you "prediction" that was in error.

leroy wrote:
It is also possible that those tracks are from vertebrates of a different lineage of that made their transition onto land earlier than actual tetrapods


yes it is possible, and it is also possible that ancient aliens visited the planet and this tracks belong to their 4 legged pets. this is not about finding possibilities, it is about finding the best explanation.


And this is one of the explanations. BTW I have given you an example of a lineage that are NOT tetrapods yet they leave their tracks in the mud as we speak, so this is not comparable to your equivocation fallacy (with the alien and his pet). Can you give me an example of Aliens visiting the planet and leaving the tracks of their pets, otherwise would you be kind enough to take this Equivocation and
Image

leroy wrote:in this particular case, all the evidence indicates that this are tetrapod footprints, until proven otherwise, we most assume that these are tetrapod footprints. is any good reason to think otherwise?
this are the footprints I am talking about https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114420.htm from Poland, not Germany, I AM


No, not all evidence indicates that this are tetrapods foot prints, they could be they could be something else. but again it doesn't matter wether they are or aren't. You agreed that tiktaalik can exists alongside derived tetrapods that would have left the tracks and if you agreed to this than this is not "false prediction"

leroy wrote:
Because you haven't pointed out any of such predictions that I can even admit to. Though I am willing to admit to if you can present one that is not a straw man prediction that evolution doesn't really predict. You may think that your "prediction" is legit, but as I have already pointed out


the theory of evolution predicts that the oldest fishapods predate the oldest tetrapods (agree?)


It does NOT predict that we should find fishapods older than tetrapods IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
That is the point you KEEP missing.

leroy wrote:We find the oposite in the fossil record (agree?)


Yes, which is NOT a problem for evolution as I have explained and you agreed to that explanation.

leroy wrote:therefore evolution made an incorrect prediction. as simple as that.


NO, since evolution does not predict that we should find fishapods that are older than tetrapods IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

leroy wrote:
But even if there were legit predictions that turned out to be in error, that wouldn't mean much. I know that there are theories which made terrible predictions, yet no one really disputes (never say no one, flat earthers are the exceptional stupid) like gravity


granted, no one is saying that we should drop the theory of evolution just because it made an incorrect prediction, but it works both ways, the same applies when we happen to have a correct prediction.


Well got nothing on that.

leroy wrote:you seem to make a big deal because you made a correct prediction regarding tiktaalik, but when you face an incorrect prediction, you seem to minimize it, this is a double standard.


No it is not, since you have not pointed out any incorrect prediction. You made that prediction yourself and asserted that evolution predicts this (while it doesn't) such that it is a straw man. Nothing more than that.

leroy wrote:so in regards to the original question about tiktaalik, I would say that YES we did find what evolution predicted, but making a correct prediction is not a big deal, given that there are millions and millions of fossils, it is not very surprising to find 3 or 4 fossils in the expected order.


It is not that we find only a few fossils, ALL fossils are in the order we expect. And yes a fishapods living alongside tetrapods is nothing more of a problem than dogs and wolves living alongside each other.

And it is not just the prediction of finding tiktaalik in the right order. WE also predicted what characteristics it had and at WHAT place we should look for it. That is a strong prediction that you try to minimize by making up a straw man.

leroy wrote:
Yet The theory of evolution doesn't have this problem, it has never failed any test (so far I am aware of), and there are things that only evolution form common ancestry can account for. And just like many other theories, it has real world applications that would not work (of would not be as sophisticated) without the theory that unifies biology. Applications in fields such as medicine, agriculture and biotechnology and even computer technology with genetic algorithms. This makes evolution one of the strongest theories in science.


can you name an application that would only work is evolution (common ancestry) where true?


I gave a few in the very quote above.

To be more specific, discovery of new drugs
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... smatter_05
http://www.saps.org.uk/secondary/teachi ... -daffodils

leroy wrote:
This was not a red herring (not hearings), your dolphin/bat comparison was specifically used to back up your statement that "similarity does not necessary imply common ancestry" (see below). So stop ignoring this as if it is irrelevant.


it is not relevant, we both agree that bats and dolphins have similarities related to echolocation and we both agree that this similarities are not due to common ancestry.


I have refuted that point.

leroy wrote:
Well it depends on what characteristics you are talking about. The fact that all of them have backbones, Mammary glands, inner ear bones, hair (in some for or another, some whales still have tiny hairs) or just are mammals. Than that is due to common descent.


but the similarities in proteins related to echolocation are not due to common ancestry.........agree?..........BTW this is an other example of an incorrect prediction, it is not a big deal, all theories make incorrect predictions, but it is a bit arrogant to say that evolution doesn't make any incorrect prediction.


I have refuted that point.

leroy wrote:
thylacines have more things in common with Kangaroos than with dogs. The fact that they are superficially similar to dogs doesn't mean much, whit regard to phylogeny. We can tell that for the same reason we can tell that bats are not more closely related to birds than to other mammals, despite both having wings. To you it may be obvious that bats are not close to birds, but I know people who have think that bats are birds, because they fly.


so what, it is still a fact that they have dog like atributes, that are not due to common ancestry. we both agree that similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry, so why are you pushing on this?


I have refuted that point, or more accurately, the dover trial has refuted that point.

The reason why I am pushing on this, is because that misrepresents that all we are saying about how we know common ancestry is true, as if we are just saying, they are similar thus they are related.

That is not what we DO!!
Which is why I explained those things about the dolphin and bats, which I have proven you were wrong on many things you have claimed.

I know you don't like to be proven wrong, which is why you are desperate to yell "irrelevant" while they are fucking relevant.

leroy wrote:
Most people have no idea how to classify life forms. Some just do it the easy way, by what they do or what general capability they have like flight. If it flies it is a birds so bats are birds. If it swims it is a fish, so whales are fish (yes many people still think that whales are fish, although I think that whales are technically fish but not for the same reason). If you classified life forms based on wether they have wings, then bats, birds, bees would be in the same category. But the fact still remains that the wings themselves are different. Their anatomy is not the same despite being used for the same purpose.



yes and so what?


This refutes your claims. That is what.

leroy wrote:I don't what to sound picky but whales are not fish..............fish is not a clade


Whales are part of the lobe finned fish category (as are we), and that is a clade.

And I also told you that I think whales (and other tetrapods) are fish for different reasons than most people who think whales count as fish. because tetrapods are a subset of the lobe finned fish clade. So whales are lobe finned fish, and so are we.

I have read the rest of your response and the most important points to be addressed are these:

just for the record, the bat dophins similarties, are similarities at a genetic level, this is not analogous to the wings in bees, bats and birds.


FALSE
I wrote:
Leroy wrote:Ecolocation in bats and dolphins is almost identical even at a molecular level (same proteins same genes)


I looked that the citation you provided, but nowhere does it say that the genes where identical, nor in the original article.

The only similar statement that it said was:
"in 2010, Stephen Rossiter, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary, University of London, and his colleagues determined that both types of echolocating bats, as well as dolphins, had the same mutations in a particular protein called prestin, which affects the sensitivity of hearing. Looking at other genes known to be involved in hearing, they and other researchers found several others whose proteins were similarly changed in these mammals."

Notice that it doesn't say that the proteins and genes are identical. The mutations where identical and they happen in the same genes. Prestin in particular which is involved in hearing, not surprising since both bats and dolphins use hearing in echolocation.

But the genes as a whole are not identical. Let me demonstrate.
I took the nucleotide sequences of the prestin genes of both echolocating bats and echolocating dolphins and compare it with the sequences of their relatives that don't echolocate. You can do this too using NCBI blast.

Let's do this science style.

Question: What are the relationships between the gene sequences of the gene prestin of echolocating animals (certain bats and dolphins) and their close relatives.

Hypothesis 1 (common ancestry): Even though prestin of dolphins and certain bats contain similar changes as an adaptation towards echolocation, the relationship between them and their relatives should still follow the model of common ancestry. The prestin of echolocating bats should be more similar to that of non-echolocating bats and that of dolphins should be more similar relatives like other Cetaceans that don't echolocate.

Hypothesis 2 (Identical at the molecular level, same proteins same genes): Since prestin is identical in both echolocating bats and dolphins, they should be more similar to each other, even more then sequences of those that are supposedly more closely related to them than either one are to each other.

Data:
Prestin cDNA sequences of:
1. Echolocating animals
- Bottlenose Dolphin
- Little brown bat

2. Non echolocating animals
Close relative of dolphins:
- Mink whale
Close relative of echolocating bats:
- Large Flying Fox

Methods: NCBI blast

Results:
1 Close relative comparisons (echo locators on their non echo locator relative).
- Bottlenose Dolphin / Mink whale = 97% match
- Little brown bat / Large flying fox = 93% match

2. Echolocators comparisons
- Little brown bat / Bottle Nose dolphin = 92% match

Conclusion:
There is a closer match between the echo locators and their close relatives then there is between the echo locators themselves, which was expected by the hypothesis based on common ancestry.


disagree, but irrelevant, tiktaalik does not have any diagnostic traits anyway, so who cares if diagnostic traits imply common ancestry.
you seem to be loosing the context of the conversation, all this discussion about similarities was to show that the fact that tiktaalik has tetrapod like structures, does not necessary imply that tetrapods came from tiktaalik,


FALSE
tiktaalik DOES have diagnostic traits that puts them alongside the tetrapods.
Image

Even children are capable of seeing this.


All your entire "similarity doesn't necessarily mean common ancestry" is refuted here, again.

leroy wrote:we do find animals with shared characteristics of 2 different clades, there is no mystery about that. for example marsupial wolves share characteristics with kangaroos and dogs, dolphins share characteristics with bats and whales...........and none of this similarities are due to common descent.


Well it depends on what characteristics you are talking about. The fact that all of them have backbones, Mammary glands, inner ear bones, hair (in some for or another, some whales still have tiny hairs) or just are mammals. Than that is due to common descent.

thylacines have more things in common with Kangaroos than with dogs. The fact that they are superficially similar to dogs doesn't mean much, whit regard to phylogeny. We can tell that for the same reason we can tell that bats are not more closely related to birds than to other mammals, despite both having wings. To you it may be obvious that bats are not close to birds, but I know people who have think that bats are birds, because they fly.

Most people have no idea how to classify life forms. Some just do it the easy way, by what they do or what general capability they have like flight. If it flies it is a birds so bats are birds. If it swims it is a fish, so whales are fish (yes many people still think that whales are fish, although I think that whales are technically fish but not for the same reason). If you classified life forms based on wether they have wings, then bats, birds, bees would be in the same category. But the fact still remains that the wings themselves are different. Their anatomy is not the same despite being used for the same purpose.

You have to learn more about anatomy and physiology to know how to do taxonomy.

Thylacines look on the outside like dogs just like dolphins look like sharks or the glass snake looks like a snake (but it is a legless skink not a snake).

The Thylacine/Dog comparison has been used to challenge homology as evidence for evolution in the Pandas book, which that was close to being used to push "intelligent design" in the classrooms of America. During the Dover trial in 2005, this argument was examined and pretty much exposed, better then I could ever do here, for what it is. Bunk
https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/dire ... homology-a

As for "dolphins sharing characteristics with bats and whales" well the whale isn't surprising since dolphins ARE freaking whales. And the bat and dolphin comparison sounds like a similar argument someone else used that I have refuted HERE

Wait....wait....hold on.....YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!!!!

leroy wrote:similarities do not necessary imply common ancestry........agree?


No, but shared diagnostic traits do [more specifically: derived synapomorphies]. For example the fact that we all have the diagnostic traits that define what a mammal is, makes us more closer to all other mammals than to non-mammals. And it isn't just similarities [synapomorphies, it is also about the differences and ] the pattern by which they occur.
Image

[The theory of evolution explains both the unity (why life forms share synapomorphies in certain patterns) and the diversity (why life forms of different lineages are different, even if they look superficially like each other on the outside) of life]


And we see the same [pattern of shared traits and differences, that only should be there if life forms share a common ancestor] in the genome as well.


leroy wrote:so I guess my answer would be that, an intelligent designer could have created creatures that have stuff in common with one group of animals and stuff in common with some other group, sometimes this similarities correspond to evolutionary predictions, sometimes they don't.


They always do. And I don't say "similarities" I clarify it as shared traits. Wings are not proper traits since wings can have drastically different anatomy from species who have evolved it independently. This is one way we can tell wether "similarity" is due to homology or analogy.

This is a superb video that best explains why the "similarity doesn't prove common ancestry, it can also point toward a common designer!" fails.


Don't just pick one sentence and say, that doesn't have anything to do with tiktaalik or "so you are agreeing....." no. Read the whole thing, watch those videos and understand that it isn't just about similarities for how we know that common ancestry is really a thing.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:15 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:14 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:I am seriously considering that I should let this go, and I am wondering wether I should have done that a long time ago. Because you clearly don't have the intention to have an honest discussion, despite your repeated statement that you are "honestly, just asking questions"


I am enjoying your posts, thus I would be saddened if you stopped responding. You can always do what I have been doing with dandan/leroy. See how concise you can make your post and quote yourself back at him if he repeats something already asked/addressed.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:52 pm
YIM WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

leroy wrote:I wont reply not comment on anything that is not related to my original question .....why are most ancestors missing? feel free not to respond to all the comments that I made on my last post that are not related to the question.


Since dandan/leroy cannot be bothered to present his own argument, this is what he said over a year ago.

leroy wrote:Given the definition of transitional from talk origins, I don´t argue that there are no transitional fossils, sure there are thousands of them.
My argument is that there are few (if any) fossils that represent possible direct ancestors.

This is my argument:

Premise 1: evolution predicts thousands of fossils from direct ancestors
Premise 2: there are no direct ancestors in the fossil record
Therefore evolution made a wrong prediction.

Just to be clear which of the 2 premises you think is wrong?


Dandan/leroy knows there are thousands of transitional fossils, that is why he has to shift the goalpost before starting, create a straw man, and ask for something that is almost impossible for the fossil record to prove. That also speaks volumes about his honesty when asking this question. Yet, even with this lofty goal, when we have a complete fossil record (that being the real problem, as everyone has already pointed out) it can be reached.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:52 am
YIM WWW
Bango SkankUser avatarPosts: 128Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:15 amLocation: Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Sorry if this is a bit offtopic, but i'd like some answers related to grass and dinosaurs. I'm following a argument on another forum, where a creationist claims that behemoth is a dinosaur. I was going to use Aronra's video "Flinstones Archaeology" againts that claim, but around 40:25 on that video Aronra says that dinosaurs didn't eat grass, because grass didn't exist back then. But i found an article that says opposite and it's older than Aronra's video.

Article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... aze-grass/

Did Aronra make a mistake, or am i missing something here?

(Also i cant use that navel argument a bit later, because most translations don't use that word)
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."
Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:28 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2204Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Bango Skank wrote:Sorry if this is a bit offtopic, but i'd like some answers related to grass and dinosaurs. I'm following a argument on another forum, where a creationist claims that behemoth is a dinosaur. I was going to use Aronra's video "Flinstones Archaeology" againts that claim, but around 40:25 on that video Aronra says that dinosaurs didn't eat grass, because grass didn't exist back then. But i found an article that says opposite and it's older than Aronra's video.

Article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... aze-grass/

Did Aronra make a mistake, or am i missing something here?

(Also i cant use that navel argument a bit later, because most translations don't use that word)


The correct answer is a bit more nuanced. Modern grass certainly didn't exist, but 'grass' is actually quite a broad class of plants that includes things as diverse as bamboo and palm trees.

There have been grasses around for many millions of years.
Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:11 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3165Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Feel free to ask questions about evolution.

Selection or Drift?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:38 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 65 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests