Ignorance and evolution

[garysibio]

All fossils are of transition species Just like all species are transition species <<

Only if you assume evolution to be true which is circular reasoning. You can also view them as distict, created species with no interconnection other than similarity of design.

There are very good fossil records of the evolution of many species By themselves they are compelling When they are coupled with other independent evidence such as genetics they are irrefutable. <<

Then why did Stephen J Gould have to invent his theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence for evolution? The evidence for gradual evolution just does not exist in the fossil records.

Out of curiosity how many “transition” fossils are you looking for to document a change? If you were plotting line how many points would you want before agreeing to a the trend in the data? <<

Enough to show evidence that there is an actual continuum between species actually existed. Any honest paleontologist will admit that the gaps between fossil species are huge.

Gary

 

[edwest2]

“punctuated equilibrium” Think about that for a moment. Does it make sense? I don’t think so.

The better explanation for all life on earth was that it was created to live in the same gravity, and same atmosphere. All of those creatures surrounded by plants and/or animals that they also could just “happen” to be able to eat. Take the koala which subsists on eucalyptus leaves. Which came first, the eucalyptus or the koala?

And man. Did he just walk around, “Gosh. Maybe I’ll just eat this geen thing, uh, just because…”? “Uh, are animals edible?”

The people who support the idea that everything just “accidentally” came to be are fooled by atheism.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

All fossils are of transition species Just like all species are transition species <<

BUT since we can dirrectly observe genetic varriance both over time and between issolated populations (i.e. evoluiton) and there is no proposed mechanism to stop said varriance then evolution is not an assumption it is an observation

There are very good fossil records of the evolution of many species By themselves they are compelling When they are coupled with other independent evidence such as genetics they are irrefutable. <<

of course it does. Do you think folks just make stuff up?

Evolution occurs in different ways and at different speeds in response to different selective pressures.
Gould’s work doesn’t preclude gradual evolution

But even if it did OK then evolution occurs in rapid (in geological terms) bursts concession on evolution accepted.

Out of curiosity how many “transition” fossils are you looking for to document a change? If you were plotting line how many points would you want before agreeing to a the trend in the data? <<

Really?
Of course we may not have A,B, C, D, …. all the way to X, Y, Z for each and every species
And any paleontologist will probably want more fossils (science is always better the more data you have) but to imply that a paleontologist who looks at A, D, H, M, S, R, W, & Z and interprets a trend is not honest is just name calling.

But this highlights one of the strengths of the theory. There are many instances where given species A and C a prediction was made that species B would be found with such and such properties in such and such geologic layers.
The discovery of the Ur-ant is a great example of this.

 

[steveandersen]

“punctuated equilibrium” Think about that for a moment. Does it make sense? I don’t think so.

So Garysibo says gradual can’t exists because so-and-so suggested punctuated and now you’re going to say oh yeah punctuated can’t happen either?

Punctuated equilibrium makes prefect sense for a number of reasons. The geologic record is full of periods when environmental changes happened more rapidly than at others. Or if a spectacularly robust genetic change occurs it would become dominant quickly.

What are your particular objections?

The better explanation for all life on earth was that it was created to live in the same gravity, and same atmosphere.

What makes you think that and evolution are mutually exclusive?

How were those creatures created? The record seems to show that God did it gradually using evolution.

All of those creatures surrounded by plants and/or animals that they also could just “happen” to be able to eat. Take the koala which subsists on eucalyptus leaves. Which came first, the eucalyptus or the koala?

Why do you think this is some sort of dilemma?
Obviously they evolved together (along with the rest of their environment) things don’t happen in a vacuum.

And man. Did he just walk around, “Gosh. Maybe I’ll just eat this geen thing, uh, just because…”? “Uh, are animals edible?”

Primates were eating plants and animals before there were men. We didn’t have to reinvent the wheel we just carried on as we were…we just got a lot better at it.

The people who support the idea that everything just “accidentally” came to be are fooled by atheism.

God bless,
Ed

Ed you have been spouting this same vitriol for months
Just because you add a “God Bless” at the end doesn’t give you license to question a fellow Catholics’ faith or intelligence.

You started this thread (thirty some odd pages ago) with the complaint that those who doubted evolution were considered ignorant. I don’t know if that is true or not but that doesn’t give you leave to throw around the “A” word.

Nowhere in biology is “accidental” used. Biology merely observes that evolution does occur. If there is a purpose behind it that is not germane to the fact that it does occur nor is there any biological test for such a purpose. You can’t put God in a test tube.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution occurs in different ways and at different speeds in response to different selective pressures.
Gould’s work doesn’t preclude gradual evolution

But even if it did OK then evolution occurs in rapid (in geological terms) bursts concession on evolution accepted.

I’ll assume that you’re joking with the contradictory answer given here. The question was why Gould had to invent his punctuated equilibrium theory if evolution was a gradual process.
You answer by saying that evolution happens at “different speeds” (this does not explain Gould’s theory) and that P.E. does not preclude “gradual evolution”. (?)
After making this supposedly scientifically factual assertion, you then say that even if what you just stated was wrong (e.g. your “fact” could be mistaken), then everything is still “OK” because you made a “concession”.

We will be reminded again, of course, that this is all “hard science” and that it’s “mindboggling” that anyone could doubt the “facts” of evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ll assume that you’re joking with the contradictory answer given here. The question was why Gould had to invent his punctuated equilibrium theory if evolution was a gradual process.

It is in time as we think of it. In geologic time, it can go very fast. But it can also slow down to almost nothing, depending on the population and the environment. If there is a well-adapted population in a stable environment, natural selection can actually prevent evolution for a long time. It’s called “stabilizing selection”, and has been experimentally verified.

You answer by saying that evolution happens at “different speeds” (this does not explain Gould’s theory)

It explains (as Gould says), why most evolution seems to be rapid, followed by stasis, while there are some examples of slow and gradual evolution, such as horses.

and that P.E. does not preclude “gradual evolution”. (?)

Right. Allopatric speciation is most common, but it isn’t the only mode of evolution. Hence, the evolution of horses over many millions of years is so gradual that the adjacent transitionals often have less variation between them than is found in some mammalian species today.

After making this supposedly scientifically factual assertion,

It’s supported by a great deal of evidence. Would you like to learn about some of it?

We will be reminded again, of course, that this is all “hard science”

Right. The fossils are available for you to see, if you like. Would you like to go through the line of horses that led to the modern genus?

and that it’s “mindboggling” that anyone could doubt the “facts” of evolution.

It used to astonish me. But hardly anything creationists do surprises me, these days.

 

[edwest2]

So Garysibo says gradual can’t exists because so-and-so suggested punctuated and now you’re going to say oh yeah punctuated can’t happen either?

Punctuated equilibrium makes prefect sense for a number of reasons. The geologic record is full of periods when environmental changes happened more rapidly than at others. Or if a spectacularly robust genetic change occurs it would become dominant quickly.

What are your particular objections?

What makes you think that and evolution are mutually exclusive?

How were those creatures created? The record seems to show that God did it gradually using evolution.

Why do you think this is some sort of dilemma?
Obviously they evolved together (along with the rest of their environment) things don’t happen in a vacuum.

Primates were eating plants and animals before there were men. We didn’t have to reinvent the wheel we just carried on as we were…we just got a lot better at it.

Ed you have been spouting this same vitriol for months
Just because you add a “God Bless” at the end doesn’t give you license to question a fellow Catholics’ faith or intelligence.

You started this thread (thirty some odd pages ago) with the complaint that those who doubted evolution were considered ignorant. I don’t know if that is true or not but that doesn’t give you leave to throw around the “A” word.

Nowhere in biology is “accidental” used. Biology merely observes that evolution does occur. If there is a purpose behind it that is not germane to the fact that it does occur nor is there any biological test for such a purpose. You can’t put God in a test tube.

This is a Catholic forum. I don’t know why rejecting certain things qualifies as vitriol. God cannot be put into a test tube but the Church has much to say about evolution. For example:

“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” from Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

The Catholic Church has the whole answer, the right answer, the correct answer. The biology textbook is incomplete.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)

Gradual change = species appearing abruptly and then “natural selection can actually prevent evolution for a long time.”

Evolution happens very fast - new taxa appear abruptly with no evidence of gradual evolution. Then there is stasis where no evolution happens at all.

This is what is meant by slow, steady gradual evolution.

But even if it doesn’t mean that, it’s OK since evolution occurs somehow anyway.

“It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. …It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. …They’ve ignored the question completely.” (Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?” Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 p. 6.)

“In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360.)

 

[garysibio]

So Garysibo says gradual can’t exists because so-and-so suggested punctuated and now you’re going to say oh yeah punctuated can’t happen either? <<

Please try to read what I write. It makes it seem more worthwhile that way. I did not offer the theory of punctuated equilibrium as evidence of gaps in the fossil record, I said that Gould came up with the idea to explain the gaps in the fossil record. Do you understand the difference? The gaps would exist regardless of whether or not Gould came up with the idea.

Punctuated equilibrium makes prefect sense for a number of reasons. The geologic record is full of periods when environmental changes happened more rapidly than at others. Or if a spectacularly robust genetic change occurs it would become dominant quickly.

What are your particular objections? <<

Essentially, PE is a cop-out theory. It was only invented because the evidence did not support evolution. When Darwin wrote there were not many fossils so he could blame the gaps between forms on a lack of fossils. Now we have an abundance of fossils and the gaps still exist. This is an embarrassment to the evolutionists.

So Gould comes up with the idea just maybe mother nature jammed on the evolutionary accelerator periodically and that we had these huge jumps. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Gee Stephen, got any evidence. Not really but it would really be nice for the evolutionists if this was true. Science doesn’t work that way.

As far as environmental changes are concerned, there have been some major changes since 900 AD but we don’t see any new jumps, do we?

What makes you think that and evolution are mutually exclusive? <<

You’re going to have to finish the sentence before I can answer this one.

How were those creatures created? The record seems to show that God did it gradually using evolution. <<

The record can be interpreted in more than one way.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

BUT since we can dirrectly observe genetic varriance both over time and between issolated populations (i.e. evoluiton) and there is no proposed mechanism to stop said varriance then evolution is not an assumption it is an observation <<

I know of no scientist that claims he has seen one species evolve from another. I forget his name but he was a geneticist who experimented with friut flies. He said something to the effect of: I have fruit flies with wings and fruit flies without, I have fruit flies with eyes and fruit flies without, … but I still have fruit flies.

of course it does. Do you think folks just make stuff up? <<

There are people who will swear up and down that they took a ride in an alien spacecraft. Just because someone believes something does not mean it’s true.

Evolution occurs in different ways and at different speeds in response to different selective pressures.
Gould’s work doesn’t preclude gradual evolution <<

The gaps in the fossil record preclude gradual evolution.

Of course we may not have A,B, C, D, …. all the way to X, Y, Z for each and every species
And any paleontologist will probably want more fossils (science is always better the more data you have) but to imply that a paleontologist who looks at A, D, H, M, S, R, W, & Z and interprets a trend is not honest is just name calling. <<

The problem is that, more often than not, what we have is A and Z.

Gary

 

[edwest2]

Does anyone here actually care to know how God did it or is God just tacked onto a sentence because this is a Catholic forum? Be honest. If you’re an atheist and you get some kind of thrill from posting on Catholic forums, just say so. The point is, the evidence, as it’s called, can be interpreted in different ways. But that is verboten for some here.

If anything even vaguely similar to evolution occurred, it happened only because God made it happen. But, and this is the important part, God is the first cause. Period. Not the biology textbook, which is lacking this critical information. Like it or not, the Catholic Church has created a synthesis of science and divinely revealed truth to give Catholics the whole answer. But, we are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. Got it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thing]

Barbarian:

Right. The fossils are available for you to see, if you like. Would you like to go through the line of horses that led to the modern genus?

Yes, I would.

I would like to see all the transitionals including the animal, (not a horse, or even horse-like), which it came from.

Thanks.

 

[PhilVaz]

Gary S << Essentially, PE is a cop-out theory. It was only invented because the evidence did not support evolution. >>

WRONG.



Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Thing << I would like to see all the transitionals including the animal, (not a horse, or even horse-like), which it came from. >>

Well, first we start off with a single cell like this:

http://www.bringyou.to/SingleCell.jpg

Then after a few billion years we get…

The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: ( Ma = million years ago )

http://www.bringyou.to/DawnHorse.jpg

– Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma, previously “Eohippus”) – The famous “dawn horse,” a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout, 4 toes in front and 3 behind

… skipping a few million years of macroevolution

– Merychippus gunteri (mid-Miocene, 18 Ma) – Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth
– Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, 17 Ma) – Slightly more advanced
– Merychippus spp (mid-late Miocene, 16-15 Ma) – 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony

and then… some more extinct ones…

– M. primus
– M. sejunctus
– M. isonesus
– M. intermontanus
– M. stylodontus
– M. carrizoensis

… finally we get…

Equus (Equus) (Pleistocene, about 1 Ma) – Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses and donkeys

http://www.bringyou.to/MrEdHorse.jpg

Order Perissodactyla, Family Equidae, Genus Equus

– Equus burchelli: the Plains zebra of Africa, including “Grant’s zebra”, “Burchell’s zebra”, “Chapman’s zebra”, the half-striped Quagga, and other subspecies. The Plains zebra is what people usually think of as the “typical zebra”, with rather wide vertical stripes, and thick horizontal stripes on the rump.
– Equus zebra: the Mountain zebra of South Africa. This is the little zebra with the dewlap and the gridiron pattern on its rump.
– Equus grevyi: Grevy’s zebra, the most horse-like zebra. This is the big zebra with the very narrow vertical stripes and huge ears.
– Equus caballus, the true horse, which once had several subspecies.
– Equus hemionus: the desert-adapted onagers of Asia & the Mideast, including the kiang (formerly E. kiang).
– Equus asinus: the true asses & donkeys of northern Africa. (The African wild asses are sometimes called E. africanus.)

HORSES SOURCES:

Introduction to the Perissodactyla by Univ CA Berkeley
The Evolution of Perissodactyls by Donald R. Prothero and Robert M. Schoch, ed. (Oxford Univ Press, 1989)
Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae by Bruce J. MacFadden (Cambridge Univ Press, 1994)
Horse Evolution FAQ by Kathleen Hunt
Fossil Horses In Cyberspace by Florida Museum of Natural History!

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Mr. Ed << Does anyone here actually care to know how God did it >>

HOW GOD DID IT:

http://www.bringyou.to/DarwinThink.jpg



Phil P

 

[Thing]

Thing << I would like to see all the transitionals including the animal, (not a horse, or even horse-like), which it came from. >>

Well, first we start off with a single cell like this:

http://www.bringyou.to/SingleCell.jpg

Then after a few billion years we get…

The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: ( Ma = million years ago )

http://www.bringyou.to/DawnHorse.jpg

Phil P

But you see, Phil, that looks like a horse to me. I want to see the fossils of the creature that gave rise to that horse, - and which does not look like a horse, and the transitionals between.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[steveandersen]

I’ll assume that you’re joking with the contradictory answer given here.

No, I’m serious on this one.
And I was not contradictory

The question was why Gould had to invent his punctuated equilibrium theory if evolution was a gradual process.

For the same reason that anyone modifies a theory, to better explain some existing data. Why do you think?

Are you suggesting that Gould was denying or throwing out the theory completely?

N.B. both gradual and punctuated evolution are evolution
So you can’t disprove the existence of ice cream because you had vanilla and then someone goes out and invents chocolate.
It’s still all ice cream.

You answer by saying that evolution happens at “different speeds” (this does not explain Gould’s theory) and that P.E. does not preclude “gradual evolution”. (?)

That seems pretty straightforward to me. Gould came up with his theory to explain a certian set of data.
Evolution does happen at different speeds (this is a natural process after all, not some mechanically regulated one) so punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

N.B. PE is “rapid” in comparison to say continental drift. It is still a gradual process in human terms.

After making this supposedly scientifically factual assertion, you then say that even if what you just stated was wrong (e.g. your “fact” could be mistaken), then everything is still “OK” because you made a “concession”.

No, you made the concession. You brought up PE as some sort of argument against evolution. My point was that PE is a form of evolution so if you’re using it you’ve conceded that there is evolution.

That was the part where I was being funny. Work with me here.

We will be reminded again, of course, that this is all “hard science” and that it’s “mindboggling” that anyone could doubt the “facts” of evolution.

Well a less charitable man might say that but ……yes.

I can see folks debating the Theory of Evolution such as the finer points between PE and gradualism, I can see folks talking about the theological implications, but to out and out deny the data……

 

[steveandersen]

So Garysibo says gradual can’t exists because so-and-so suggested punctuated and now you’re going to say oh yeah punctuated can’t happen either? <<

I didn’t say you did

I said that Gould came up with the idea to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

That sounds reasonable
While I don’t care for his theology, Gould is a competent biologist

Do you understand the difference? The gaps would exist regardless of whether or not Gould came up with the idea.

and so……?

Punctuated equilibrium makes prefect sense for a number of reasons. The geologic record is full of periods when environmental changes happened more rapidly than at others. Or if a spectacularly robust genetic change occurs it would become dominant quickly.

But PE is evolution. How could it not support it?

When Darwin wrote there were not many fossils so he could blame the gaps between forms on a lack of fossils.

We could always do that.
Certain environments (hence certain creatures) more readily produce fossils

Take a walk in any natural environment and you will not see many dead things just lying around waiting to be fossilized so they will always be rare.

Now we have an abundance of fossils and the gaps still exist. This is an embarrassment to the evolutionists.

Not particularly
It is expected
and how many points do you need to make a line?

Fortunately we also have DNA now so to portray fossils as some Achilles heel of the theory is not quite right.

So Gould comes up with the idea just maybe mother nature jammed on the evolutionary accelerator periodically and that we had these huge jumps.

As predicted in evolutionary theory

As I said above
The geologic record is full of periods when environmental changes happened more rapidly than at others. Or if a spectacularly robust genetic change occurs it would become dominant quickly.

It is not a refutation it is a confirmation

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Gee Stephen, got any evidence. Not really but it would really be nice for the evolutionists if this was true. Science doesn’t work that way.

Part of the test that separates a theory from a hypothesis is that a theory makes predictions. Gould predicts that there will be periods of rapid change which maybe evidenced by data gaps.

That is the way science works

As far as environmental changes are concerned, there have been some major changes since 900 AD but we don’t see any new jumps, do we?

(a) Quite a few like bacteria able to consume industrial waste
(b) When Gould says “rapid” do you seriously suggest that he is talking 1,100 years for large animals? Wow!

What makes you think that and evolution are mutually exclusive? <<

It is a complete sentence or as you said Please try to read what I write. It makes it seem more worthwhile that way.
Edwest2 had said
The better explanation for all life on earth was that it was created to live in the same gravity, and same atmosphere.

His explanation is the “that” in my response to him.

So I’ll ask again.
What makes you think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive?

How were those creatures created? The record seems to show that God did it gradually using evolution. <<

Yes, someone without faith could eliminate God using the principal of Parsimony.
I chose not to. It is a leap of faith

 

[Thing]

While I don’t care for his theology, Gould is a competent biologist

Was, if its the paleontologist you both are talking about, he is dead.

 

[steveandersen]

Was, if its the paleontologist you both are talking about, he is dead.

yes you are correct
Gould is dead

I bet he was surprised