Human immunity, evolved from corals!:

Originally posted by humy

The purpose of Punctuated Equilibrium is to explain why there is not a continuous fossil record. If the fossil record is continuous, then why do we need a theory to explain why it's not continuous?

There are two possible meaning you can give to the word “continuous” in this context that I believe has just lead to major confusion in this c ...[text shortened]... ist today).

Punctuated Equilibrium is a proven scientific fact -the fossil record proves it.

The term punctuated equilibrium is descriptive of what it attempts to explain. It's not just a matter of there being an incomplete fossil record, if that was the case then there would be no need for a theory to explain its incompleteness. It would be enough to simply say the fossil record is incomplete, but that's not what PE is supposed to explain. It comes from the fact that a consistent pattern began to emerge as more and more fossil evidence was being unearthed.

The purpose of PE is to explain consistent gaps in the fossil record, separating species from their closest lower forms. We should be seeing smooth transitions or at the very least no consistency in gaps, but this is not shown in the fossil record. So PE very aptly explains why we don't see this sort of fossil evidence, even though it is vital to any evolutionary theory for there to have been intermediate species.

The problem I have with PE is this theory was first proposed to explain the gaps, but now it's cited as a reason for those gaps. In other words the theory explains the gaps, and the gaps validate the theory.

So in the absence of fossils needed for verifiable physical evidence, the gaps are now seen as evidence that supports PE. It is now accepted without question that puctuated equilibrium is able to explain why the fossil record is punctuated by consistent gaps.


If you don't see a problem with this kind of reasoning then consider this:

If a creationist said to you the fact that you can't see God is proof of his existence, would you see anything wrong with that reasoning? If so, then can you see anything wrong with a theory that claims a lack of physical evidence is the evidence that supports the theory?

Originally posted by lemon lime
The term punctuated equilibrium is descriptive of what it attempts to explain. It's not just a matter of there being an incomplete fossil record, if that was the case then there would be no need for a theory to explain its incompleteness. It would be enough to simply say the fossil record is incomplete, but that's not what PE is supposed to y that claims a lack of physical evidence is the evidence that supports the theory?

The problem I have with PE is this theory was first proposed to explain the gaps, but now it's cited as a reason for those gaps.

that's because it is the reason for the 'gaps' -which, by the way, are not 'gaps' but rather inconsistencies with the older obsolete version of the theory that is now widely rejected precisely because of those inconsistencies.
With PE, there are no 'gaps' that we would be both surprised to see and we actually happen to see in the fossil record.
PE is an excellent example of how good science adapts the theory to the evidence rather than adapts the evidence to the theory -that is just the way good science works.

In other words the theory explains the gaps, and the gaps validate the theory.

Perfect! So the theory works and explains it all! (including explains the so-called 'gaps'😉 So what's your problem?

So in the absence of fossils needed for verifiable physical evidence, the gaps are now seen as evidence that supports PE.

which fossils are absent which we would expect to have seen if PE was correct? -answer, none. The fossils we have already seen are evidence for PE -THEY are the ones that support PE.

If a creationist said to you the fact that you can't see God is proof of his existence, would you see anything wrong with that reasoning?

Yes. AND we CAN see evidence for PE.

If so, then can you see anything wrong with a theory that claims a lack of physical evidence is the evidence that supports the theory?

Yes. AND there is NO 'lack' of physical evidence for PE -we have the physical fossil record that is consistent with PE -we have the proof.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I assume that first sentence was irony. Clearly science can't move on with a total absence of evidence, but since we are talking about gaps in the fossil record this is not the case. The fossil record is incomplete, which we can only address by looking for fossils, but there is enough data to build a narrative, for example the extinction events are qui ...[text shortened]... s missing links and so forth aren't the death knell for the theory you seem to think they are.

Many scientist today do too much assuming, like assuming the fossil records have no missing links and assuming apes were our ancestors. Assuming is not scientific.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

In other words the theory explains the gaps, and the gaps validate the theory.

Perfect! So the theory works and explains it all! (including explains the so-called 'gaps'😉 So what's your problem?

The problem is there doesn't actually need to be anything in those gaps for:

1. the theory to explain the gaps...

2. ...and the gaps validating the theory.


1. and 2. support each other. It doesn't actually support the notion of anything occupying the gaps other than what we imagine must have existed. This is an example of self supporting circular reasoning.

I'm genuinely surprised you don't at least in principle see what is wrong with this picture. The imagined transitional species are the evidence supporting punctuated equilibrium... seriously? If anything I am able to imagine can be regarded as evidence of its existence, then that leaves the door wide open for science to acknowledge anything and everything it can imagine, and postulate it as being true because our imaginations are the evidence that make it so...

You see nothing wrong with this?

Originally posted by humy

The problem I have with PE is this theory was first proposed to explain the gaps, but now it's cited as a reason for those gaps.

that's because it is the reason for the 'gaps' -which, by the way, are not 'gaps' but rather inconsistencies with the older obsolete version of the theory that is now widely rejected precisely because of those i -we have the physical fossil record that is consistent with PE -we have the proof.

This is patently absurd, and the fact I need to explain it is even more absurd. But I'll try one more time:

If I was required to turn in homework every day, but failed to do so every other Thursday because every other Wednesday night the dog sneaks into my room and eats my homework, then I have a valid excuse for not turning in homework every other Thursday.

I don't know if the dog actually does that, because at the time it happens I'm always sleeping, but the dog theory supports the gaps in homework and the homework gaps validate the theory. And hopefully, my teacher is so dumb he will accept that explanation and give me credit for homework I consistenty fail to turn in.

This is like trying to explain a joke to someone who just doesn't get it. If you don't get it the first time and I have to explain it more than once, then what's the point?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[...] even though it is vital to any evolutionary theory for there to have been intermediate species.

It's unfortunate that you still don't grasp the basics of evolution theory, which does not predict anything about what we might find in the fossil record. The fossil record might help you understand how species evolved, but as a substantiation of the fact that species evolved it's superfluous because we already know that they did from the fact that DNA exists, mutates and influences the phenotype.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The problem is there doesn't actually need to be anything in those gaps for:

1. the theory to explain the gaps...

2. ...and the gaps validating the theory.


1. and 2. support each other. It doesn't actually support the notion of anything occupying the gaps other than what we imagine must have existed. This is an example of self supporting use our imaginations are the evidence that make it so...

You see nothing wrong with this?

The problem is there doesn't actually need to be anything in those gaps for:

1. the theory to explain the gaps...

2. ...and the gaps validating the theory.


1. and 2. support each other. It doesn't actually support the notion of anything occupying the gaps other than what we imagine must have existed. This is an example of self supporting circular reasoning.

NO, it is NOT circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is in the generally form "X is true because Y is true; Y is true because X is true” where were NEITHER X or Y are given any other premise other than this circular reasoning! BUT, we HAVE ANOTHER premise for the so-called 'gaps' specifically the fossil record other that (1) and (2) above. Therefore (2) does NOT rely on (1) and therefore OBVIOUSLY this is definitely NOT circular reasoning!
If you don't believe me, just Google it and see for yourself. You obviously haven't studied basic logic like I have -at least not so you understand any of it clearly.

Here is an analogy exposing the flaw in your logic;

theory: Swiss cheese has holes in it because bacteria in it produce gasses that make bubbles in it (this theory happens to be true)

1. the theory is to explain the holes...

2. ...and the holes validate the theory.

So this theory is just circular reasoning and thus should be rejected as such?
But wait, we KNOW the holes exist! So we don't need to rely on the theory being true to know the holes exist. So it isn't circular.

Your 'logic' is badly flawed although apparently not as nearly badly flawed as RJHinds who said there isn't even such thing as logic without a flaw!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Many scientist today do too much assuming, like assuming the fossil records have no missing links and assuming apes were our ancestors. Assuming is not scientific.

The Instructor

Your stupidity is showing again. You know full well nobody says humans descended from apes. No, not stupidity, that would be at least understandable. What we have here is deliberate obfuscation. If you don't know what that means, feel free to google it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's unfortunate that you still don't grasp the basics of evolution theory, which does not predict anything about what we might find in the fossil record. The fossil record might help you understand how species evolved, but as a substantiation of the fact that species evolved it's superfluous because we already know that they did from the fact that DNA exists, mutates and influences the phenotype.

This illustrates another problem I have with evolution. It doesn't predict anything, and it has no restrictions, limitations, or barriers to prevent anything in the theory from working. In other words, it has the god-like quality of being self sufficient with no limitations.

If the fact that DNA exists and is able to operate as a functional library (meaning it not only contains information, but is able to use that information in the construction of molecular machines) supports evolution theory, then it's safe to assume anything and everything we learn about life is equally able to support the theory of evolution, whether it actually does or not.

It's unfortunate that you must claim someone doesn't understand the basics of a theory you support. I supported this theory for far more years than I have argued against it... it roughly works out to 40 years in favor of, and 10 years against. I've watched the theory itself evolve to a point where there is little to no resemblance to its own basic premise. It has become a very different critter, and has severed ties to its own presumed past.

Originally posted by lemon lime
This illustrates another problem I have with evolution. It doesn't predict anything, and it has no restrictions, limitations, or barriers to prevent anything in the theory from working. In other words, it has the god-like quality of being self sufficient with no limitations.

If the fact that DNA exists and is able to operate as a functional library (me ...[text shortened]... bout life is equally able to support the theory of evolution, whether it actually does or not.

Where did you get the idea that evolution theory "doesn't predict anything"? It predicts that life evolves, and provides a specific mechanism as to how it does so.

Really, you would do well to research the basic concepts behind evolution theory, perhaps this will help you understand what the theory is about.

Your last paragraph makes no sense; perhaps you can rephrase it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get the idea that evolution theory "doesn't predict anything"? It predicts that life evolves, and provides a specific mechanism as to how it does so.

Really, you would do well to research the basic concepts behind evolution theory, perhaps this will help you understand what the theory is about.

Your last paragraph makes no sense; perhaps you can rephrase it?

I was being facetious. Evolution accurately predicts what we already see is fact. Maybe I'm woefully ignorant of what a prediction is, but I always thought predictions were verifiable by the discoveries they predicted, and not by facts which are already readily apparent. Any fool can predict an outcome after the fact.

It's ridiculous to say evidence of evolution is not predicted in the fossil record. The fossil record is not a function of evolution, it's a function of what it took to preserve evidence in the form of fossils and preserved bones and insects caught in amber.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was being facetious. Evolution accurately predicts what we already see is fact. Maybe I'm woefully ignorant of what a prediction is, but I always thought predictions were verifiable by the discoveries they predicted, and not by facts which are already readily apparent. Any fool can predict an outcome after the fact.

It's ridiculo ...[text shortened]... to preserve evidence in the form of fossils and preserved bones and insects caught in amber.

Yes, you are right, any fool can, given the current evidence, trivially conclude that evolution theory is valid.

Evolution theory does not predict that anything will end up in the fossil record. The features of the species we do find in the fossil record can be explained using evolution theory, but in terms of supplying evidence they are not required; you don't need an apple falling from a tree to support the theory of gravity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your stupidity is showing again. You know full well nobody says humans descended from apes. No, not stupidity, that would be at least understandable. What we have here is deliberate obfuscation. If you don't know what that means, feel free to google it.

You have led a sheltered life. You must have never seen Planet of the Apes.

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get the idea that evolution theory "doesn't predict anything"? It predicts that life evolves, and provides a specific mechanism as to how it does so.

Really, you would do well to research the basic concepts behind evolution theory, perhaps this will help you understand what the theory is about.

Your last paragraph makes no sense; perhaps you can rephrase it?

I know the basic concepts behind the evolution theory, but those concepts of adaptation, natural selection, and mutations break down when extended beyond the level of changes within species or kinds. It does not work or explain how the many kinds of organisms got here. At that point evilutionists take over and begin to make many flawed assumptions that are not verified in reality. It is this area called macroevolution or evil-lution that the fairy tale or science fiction writers take over to make drawing and videos to show the assumed processes in an attempt to make it credible, but produce nothing better than Planet of the Apes. There are no true scientific predictions there.

The Instructor

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, you are right, any fool can, given the current evidence, trivially conclude that evolution theory is valid.

Evolution theory does not predict that anything will end up in the fossil record. The features of the species we do find in the fossil record can be explained using evolution theory, but in terms of supplying evidence they are not required; you don't need an apple falling from a tree to support the theory of gravity.

You are right that it is the fool that concludes the evolution theory is valid.

The Instructor