T
Techno2000
Guest
So they just wobbled along the beach for millions years waiting for their legs to evolve ?
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Nope. He wobbled his whole life and died. His son, however, had slightly better legs and got to the food a little better. So HE lived longer and hand more kids than anyone else.
Ergo, as an average, the legs of the species got just a little better with that one generation. Take the same process and cycle it a few hundred thousand times. You end up with a completely different animal.
W
Wesrock
Guest
To continue. A certain niche might be completely filled, and so some members find themselves looking for resources in certain areas they’re not adapted to. Perhaps they move closer to the shallows looking for food, and while they do comparatively weaker as they are than in the setting they’re adapted to… perhaps resources are harder to come by, or perhaps the available resources don’t sit as well in their digestive system. Still, they survive there, as competition is less. The population in shallower waters still competes with each other. Those better able to process the food, or those better able to access the resources, live longer or are more fertile. Behavioral patterns related to the tides may emerge. They pass on their traits better. So the population in the shallows might soon become noticeably different than the population that remained in the deep, even if still the same species for the time being. And the population in the deep could very well retain the same traits that they’re specialized for if not much else changes. The group that migrated to the shallows are not waiting for legs, or longer legs, or what have you. They’re just surviving in that niche. Living and dying. Those better adapted better passing on their traits. But then that niche gets occupied, and some find themselves being pushed to different areas due to competition. Perhaps focusing on different food. Or seeking different resources, perhaps closer to shore, perhaps just out, or perhaps a different location with different food but still in the shallows. Diversity increases as different populations specialize in different niches due to competition or geographical changes or what have you. It’s a matter of specialization.
G
goout
Guest
Take some basic science classes.
R
rossum
Guest
The definition of “different” depends on what clade you are looking at. “Primate” covers far fewer species than “Mammal” which covers a small fraction of the “Deuterostome” species. Yet we are primates, mammals and deuterostomes at the same time. Classify us as “deuterostomes” as we have been around for a very long time. Classify us as “primates” and we have been around for much less time. Both classifications are equally correct.
With the nested hierarchy it is important to know at what level of the hierarchy you are looking.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Where can I find a unbiased class ?
R
rossum
Guest
It was eating water-living plants that had started colonising the edge of the land. Maybe just dead seaweed washed up on a beach. Plenty of food there, and you get regularly covered in water by the waves. As the plants spread the plant-eating arthopods followed, and the carnivorous arthopods followed.
The first land-dwelling animals were arthopods.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Please, please learn something before posting. Look at a crab, a lobster, a prawn, a shrimp. All of them are arthopods, and arthopods already had legs before they left the water.
If you are trying to learn about evolution from anti-evolution websites you will be misinformed. That would be like trying to learn about Catholicism from one of those extreme Protestant “The Pope is the Antichrist” websites.
Try to find a better source to learn from.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
N
NM505StKate
Guest
I agree. If you are open to YouTube people listen to Aron Ra. He has a great series on evolution. Also yeah avoid websites like Answers In Genesis.
G
goout
Guest
How old are you? If you are an adult you should be able to find courses.
M
mVitus
Guest
Depends on what you mean by unbiased. It would be teaching that evolution is how it happened so if that counts as biased to you, then you’ll only find ‘biased’ ones. (It’d be kind of like if we were saying 2+2=4 while you said 5 and then you wanting to find a math class not biased against the 5 answer.) Your local community college might have something.
And as for arthropods having legs before leaving the water, you can look at lobsters as a modern example.
U
Usagi
Guest
In other words, there are water creatures (arthropods) that have legs. Their descendants that became land-dwellers would not have to wait to develop legs, as they already have them.
U
Usagi
Guest
You need to learn what the claims of the other side actually are. Right now you are not even asking sensible questions. Even if you don’t think evolution happened, you can only benefit from learning what evolutionists actually say. If you like, think of it as the same sort of thing the apologists here do when they study Protestant or non-Christian theologies, or what anti-Catholics like James White do when they study Catholic teaching. Arm yourself with knowledge, because right now you don’t sound like someone who has informed disagreements but like someone who does not know what he is talking about.
R
rossum
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils
R
rossum
Guest
Ah… The Patterson Quote. We have seen this before. See Patterson Misquoted for a lot of detail.
Here is more from Dr. Patterson, talking about the creationists’ use of this quote:
I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues “… a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists’ is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous “keynote address” at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the “Systematics Discussion Group” in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on “Evolutionism and creationism”; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Your quote is about as effective as me quoting the Bible as saying: “There is no God.” Those words are there in the Bible, but they do not mean what they appear to say when taken out of context. Similarly with Dr. Patterson’s words.
rossum
F
frobert
Guest
This is pretty much the routine for “right wing” theories whether about the environment, LBGT, or climate and anything else they dislike. Take something out of context, blow it up, blast on every right wing blog in existence demanding that the the science be corrected. Of course this is just a diversionary tactic to disrupt productive work.
T
Techno2000
Guest
“I still think that the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” EJH Corner, 1960
“Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.” Carl O Dunbar, 1960
“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” T Neville George, 1960
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R West, 1968
“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian—reptile transition unanswered.” Lewis L Carroll, 1969
“Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.” Carl O Dunbar, 1960
“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” T Neville George, 1960
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R West, 1968
“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian—reptile transition unanswered.” Lewis L Carroll, 1969
G
goout
Guest
Take a beginning geo-science class
- Status