26 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidThe evidence for evolution? We've been over that already.
Or, maybe the dog ate it. Maybe that's what happened to the evidence.
who knows?
26 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidThat's right, we've been over this already.
The evidence for evolution? We've been over that already.
From page 3
I'm critical of the reasoning behind punctuated equilibrium for the same reason I would question the veracity of a student who consistently shows up without his homework because "the dog ate it". If it happened once then it could be true. But if it happens at regular intervals then it's probably not true. The only evidence the completed homework exists (or existed) is the claim that it had existed... before the dog ate it.
How does a lack of evidence to support evolution work as evidence for evolution?
26 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidYou should try to convey what you are thinking using coherent sentences related to what we were previously discussing. Are you saying that if dog eats homework, then punctuated equilibrium must not exist?
That's right, we've been over this already.
From page 3
[quote]I'm critical of the reasoning behind punctuated equilibrium for the same reason I would question the veracity of a student who consistently shows up without his homework because "the dog ate it". If it happened once then it could be true. But if it happens at regular intervals then it's probably not true. T ...[text shortened]... e]
How does a lack of evidence to support evolution work as evidence for evolution?
@wildgrass saidLOL That's hilarious!
You should try to convey what you are thinking using coherent sentences related to what we were previously discussing. Are you saying that if dog eats homework, then punctuated equilibrium must not exist?
Is that really what you think?
If so then I apologize for laughing, but I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or just screwing around.
lemon-lime
I have been reading your latest posts and trying to understand what you mean and, like wildgrass, failing to because your statements are unclear and, to me, indicate your reasoning is somehow rather confused. One of your confusions is that you seem to think punctuated equilibrium means lack of evidence for evolution when, in fact, it means the rate of evolution isn't constant but varies (and also varies in a particular way. But that's besides the point). There is nothing in the basic evolution theory that implies the rate of evolution must necessarily be constant thus, if we see evidence that its rate varies as opposed to seeing evidence that its rate is constant, that isn't itself evidence for or against the existence of evolution but rather evidence that it happens at a variable rate rather than a constant rate (and is also evidence that its rate varies in a particular way. But, again, that's besides the point).
26 Feb 19
1 edit
@humy saidOf course the rate would vary, but you're presuming a rate of evolutionary change so incredibly fast there wouldn't be time to lay down lasting evidence. How fast would something have to evolve (going through several transitional stages) for this to happen?
lemon-lime
I have been reading your latest posts and trying to understand what you mean and, like wildgrass, failing to because your statements are unclear and, to me, indicate your reasoning is somehow rather confused. One of your confusions is that you seem to think punctuated equilibrium means lack of evidence for evolution when, in fact, it means the rate of evolution is ...[text shortened]... nd is also evidence that its rate varies in a particular way. But, again, that's besides the point).
It suggests a rate of change that would seem nearly instantaneous compared to the vast amount of time presumed necessary for any macro evolutionary change to take place.
27 Feb 19
2 edits
@humy
I know what PE is and what it attempts to explain. If someone points to the fossil record and asks where evidence of the transitionals are, PE is your go-to explanation.
It might work to explain the absence of 4 or 5 transitional species for one of the gaps, but there are many gaps, and realistically you should assume there were many transitionals in each gap.
There would have been at the very least thousands (perhaps millions) of individual animals in each stage, and the number of transitional stages between two known species would likely be in the thousands or millions as well. If I pare this estimate of thousands and millions (this is for only one gap, keeping in mind there are more of them) down to hundreds and thousands, this would still be far too many animals for any of them to not show up in the fossil record.
No evolutionist believes any species just went "poof" and turned into another. On the other hand it does no good to underestimate how many transitional species there could have been, or underestimate the time it would take for one known species to completely transform into another.
27 Feb 19
2 edits
lemon-lime
you're presuming a rate of evolutionary change so incredibly fast there wouldn't be time to lay down lasting evidence.No, I am not. We already have fossils of some missing links and 'some' is all we need for that form proof of evolution.
( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
etc) And that's not even to mention that some of the transitional forms are still alive today
(Examples;
http://www.0095.info/en/index_thesesen_95onesentencethesesagainste_missinglinks.html
How fast would something have to evolve (going through several transitional stages) for this to happen?
For many transitional forms, only a few tens of thousands of years. But, just like I just said, we already have fossils of some missing links and 'some' is all we need for that form proof of evolution, so you have no point.
We already have overwhelming evidence, proof in fact, of evolution, and in many different forms other than direct evidence for transitional forms (examples: https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
etc. ). But having evidence for just a few transitional forms, by itself, would surely be proof. We have evidence for many such few transitional forms so we don't need evidence for all of them for evolution to be proven. How can you explain evidence for just a few transitional forms if evolution false?
I also think you should read this;
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=bioscievolution
27 Feb 19
1 edit
We already have fossils of some missing links and 'some' is all we need for that form proof of evolution.
More likely we found contenders for the title of 'missing link' rather than proof of macro-e. I've seen examples of fossils judged as possible missing links, but couldn't definitively be proven as such.
But even so if those were true transitionals we should be finding at least as many of those if not more among the number of fossils that have been found. One of the early predictions of evolution was that we would eventually unearth indisputable proof of these transitional species. Finding something that looks like it could be a missing link is hardly proof that it is, but if you take this a step further and proclaim that it is unquestionably a true transitional, then your mind can be put to rest... evolution is again safe, and can withstand any attack from disbelievers.
27 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidWe are working with multiple analogies here. In one, I have been convicted of murder without evidence. You compared this to the lack of evidence for punctuated equilibrium. But in fact, as we've been through on multiple occasions, there is lots of evidence. Fossil records show you were there. Natural selection demonstrates the motive. The murder weapon is on you. There are bodies everywhere. The only thing the prosecutor doesn't have is closed circuit surveillance footage from 800,000 years ago.
LOL That's hilarious!
Is that really what you think?
If so then I apologize for laughing, but I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or just screwing around.
In the other, the dog ate my homework in order to justify punctuated equilibrium. But again, if we're comparing it to evolution we have physical evidence and a strong theoretical basis for concluding that either a) the dog really did eat it or b) you're lying.
27 Feb 19
1 edit
We are working with multiple analogies here.
Analogies don't appear to be popular or well understood here. And to make matters worse I've thought of another one:
A city slicker is driving through farm country and says, "Look! There's a man hanging from a pole in that cornfield!"
He drives on for a few miles and says, "Look! There's a man hanging from a pole in that cornfield too!"
After driving along for a few more miles he spots the same thing in yet another cornfield.
Now he's sensing a pattern. Two similar sightings could be a coincidence, but three suggest the possibility of a predictable pattern.
So he comes to the conclusion men hang from poles in cornfields. He doesn't need to explain why, because the evidence of his own eyes have proven this to be true.
Can you spot the error(s) in his reasoning?
27 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidMore than one scenario could account for evidence found at a crime scene, and fictional crime dramas often use this fact in order to make their stories more interesting and believable.
We are working with multiple analogies here. In one, I have been convicted of murder without evidence. You compared this to the lack of evidence for punctuated equilibrium. But in fact, as we've been through on multiple occasions, there is lots of evidence. Fossil records show you were there. Natural selection demonstrates the motive. The murder weapon is on you. There are ...[text shortened]... strong theoretical basis for concluding that either a) the dog really did eat it or b) you're lying.
Do you believe evolutionists are not motivated to single out a scenario that best fits their narrative? If they are already primed to believe something (and they are) then what is there to stop them from gravitating towards a conclusion that best 'explains' what they already believe?
27 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidNo, we have found both. Just read the links I have given you.
@humy
We already have fossils of some missing links and 'some' is all we need for that form proof of evolution.
More likely we found contenders for the title of 'missing link' rather than proof of macro-e.
27 Feb 19
5 edits
@lemon-lime saidThat is because here they are not required nor helpful to understand the concept of evolution (and related concepts) as the concept is very easy to understand if you choose to understand and providing you don't choose to be confused for religious reasons.
Analogies don't appear to be popular or well understood here.
+ your analogies don't make sense anyway which is why its YOUR analogies that "don't appear to be popular or well understood", as you said.
27 Feb 19
1 edit
@humy saidHow do you determine if something is a transitional? All species, known or not, could be defined as 'transitional' since nearly all of them supposedly came from something and presumably changed into something else.
That is because here they are not required nor helpful to understand the concept of evolution (and related concepts) as the concept is very easy to understand if you choose to understand and providing you don't choose to be confused for religious reasons.
+ your analogies don't make sense anyway.
Also, what determines where in the line up all these species should go? We determine where they go and where they are in the line up based on similarities and where we think they should be. But what if we are wrong and there is no line up? What then?
You don't need to consider those last two questions, because you have already decided there is a line up determined by order of evolutionary progress.
I can understand the concept of evolution, but apparently if I don't believe it then I must be confused for religious reasons.
Does this mean if you don't understand the concepts and reasoning I've presented it means you are confused for secular reasons?