Originally posted by KazetNagorra[ I don't recall the source, but I copied this as I was looking at various articles relating to PE. ]
Evolution theory doesn't predict anthing about the fossil record. It really, really doesn't. If you want to discredit evolution theory, you need to refute the evidence supporting the existence of DNA or the evidence supporting that it mutates or affects the phenotype.
The fossil record can help explain how species evolved, not that they can help explain how species evolved. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.
Punc eq must walk a fine line to allow for large morphological change at an extremely rapid rate, and yet keep the transitional population small enough so that its representatives are not fossilized. Can punc eq have it both ways? Is it likely that this model of evolutionary change would predominate the history of life, as would be required by the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record? Perhaps punc eq represents special pleading and requires an unlikely mechanism with many weaknesses.
Based upon the fossil record, and following the traditional mode of explanation under punctuated equilibrium, the variation must originate during a speciation event. But how fast did Gould and Eldredge claim speciation occurred?
Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through a series of intermediate stages. (Gould)
"Geographic isolation leading to reproductive isolation need not take long to occur: our estimate was from five thousand to fifty thousand years. (Eldredge)
"I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years… (Gould)
Is 50,000 years (at the most) enough time for speciation? What is the maximum amount of genetic change possible in 50,000 years? Using a mutation rate of one point mutation per 10-9 loci per year, this means that the maximum amount of change in 50,000 years is:
10-9 mutation / loci / year x 50,000 years = 0.00005 mutation / loci
This implies that in 50,000 years, a species can undergo at the very maximum a 0.005% total change in its DNA through the traditional point mutation mechanism of genetic change during a speciation. Given that genetic variation within a species can range much higher than 1%, this very small amount of genetic change possible during a speciation event seems insufficient to justify the many rapid and large transitionless morphological jumps in the fossil record which punctuated equilibrium purports are possible during speciation. Though some evolutionary biologists believed the rapid appearance of species could be accounted for by neo-Darwinian population genetics, they were critical of punctuated equilibrium.
[ Edit: To sum this up (in my own words) it means PE must accomplish a great deal in a relatively short amount of time for this theory to even come close to matching up with the sudden and signficant changes shown in the fossil record. It's a tricky ballancing act that doesn't quite explain how these many sudden spurts of evolution can be accomplished in such a relatively small amount of time
From the standpoint of practicality (reality) there necessarily needs to be enough time for significant changes to occur, even within the definition of punctuated equilibrium as espoused by its proponents... otherwise we are no longer talking about evolution, we are talking about some kind of fast acting magic. ]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI really, really do not know what your point is. Where do you see me saying evolution predicts anything about the fossil record? In case you missed it the first time I'll say it again, the fossil record is not a function of evolution, so how could it be something predicted by evolution?
Evolution theory doesn't predict anthing about the fossil record. It really, really doesn't.
The fossil record includes more than just fossils, it is preserved evidence in the form of fossils, preserved bones and frozen animals, insects in amber, and any other form of preservation. This is a function of fossilization and preservation and not a function of evolution, unless you disagree because (as you say) I do not understand what evolution is...??
And by the way, the fossil record is not the only physical evidence we should be finding which would indicate the emergence of life. Apparently evolution also does not predict we will find any other physcial evidence, such as high concentrations of nitrogen that would have been present at the beginning when there must have been an abundance of amino acids, because aminio acids are rich in nitrogen. What we've found instead are relatively low concentrations of nitrogen in the layers that should represent an abundace of the earliest primitive life forms.
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyYou're comparing the fossil record with swiss cheese to illustrate how my logic is flawed... really? We know how the holes in swiss cheese are made, so I don't see how that analogy even comes close to being analogous.
[quote] 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 ...[text shortened]... adly flawed as RJHinds who said there isn't even such thing as logic without a flaw!
Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps. We don't need to do that with swiss cheese because the holes are there for anyone to see. Since we weren't there to see the fossil record being formed, then we are only assuming there are gaps... we don't know for a fact if those gaps actually exist or not.
You know those gaps exist because your faith in evolution is able to 1. create those gaps and 2. fill those gaps. The simpliest explanation would be to take the evidence as it is and assume we are seeing a more or less true representation of reality, and not try to fudge reality by inventing evidence that simply isn't there, whether we believe it should be there or not.
10 Jul 13
6 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
You're comparing the fossil record with swiss cheese to illustrate how my logic is flawed... really? We know how the holes in swiss cheese are made, so I don't see how that analogy even comes close to being analogous.
Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps. We don't need to do that with sw inventing evidence that simply isn't there, whether we believe it should be there or not.
We know how the holes in swiss cheese are made,
And, thanks to something called science, we know why there would be 'gaps' (a possible misnomer) in the fossil record.
Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps.
So are you now saying there may be no 'gaps' in the fossil record after all?
Well, what was your original complaint all about then?
You know those gaps exist because your faith in ….
Actually, I don't know those 'gaps' exist, because it depends on what you mean by 'gaps' in this context for I cannot help but wonder if you have subtly changed its meaning as this conversation has preceded.
You have said nothing to counter argue my demonstration that you have preformed the logical error of claiming circular reasoning when no such circular reasoning exists. I have in this thread clearly demonstrated that you have preformed 3 significant logical error in your posts and clearly you just can't handle deductive logic.
10 Jul 13
7 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
[ I don't recall the source, but I copied this as I was looking at various articles relating to PE. ]
Punc eq must walk a fine line to allow for large morphological change at an extremely rapid rate, and yet keep the transitional population small enough so that its representatives are not fossilized. Can punc eq have it both ways? Is it likely that no longer talking about evolution, we are talking about some kind of fast acting magic. ]
This implies that in 50,000 years, a species can undergo at the very maximum a 0.005% total change in its DNA through the traditional point mutation mechanism of genetic change during a speciation. Given that genetic variation within a species can range much higher than 1%, this very small amount of genetic change possible during a speciation event seems insufficient to
On what bases do you arbitrary equate the amount of genetic change, i.e. change in the DNA, with how far a species has changed towards becoming another species?
This is clearly nonsense. The two obviously do NOT equate.
Theoretically, you could have only a relatively arbitrary 'small', say, 0.001% total change in its DNA, and this may lead to a new species providing the very few new genes (even, theoretically, as few as one gene! Some examples of that have been found!) prevents that species interbreeding with its ancestral species.
On the other hand, theoretically, you could have a relatively arbitrary 'large', say, 2% total change in its DNA, and this may not cause sufficient changes in a species to regard it as haven become a different species and it may have merely become a different race within the same species.
Perhaps the clearest indication that you cannot simplistically equate the amount of genetic difference with the amount of other differences between lifeforms is simply to note that we and bananas share 55% of the genes and yet clearly you cannot simplistically say we are "55% like a banana" (complete with us having a few roots and leaves) because we clearly appear to be much more animal-like than plant-like and are certainly nothing like a banana!
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyWhat I mean by gaps in this context (gaps in the fossil record) is what anyone else means by it. I'm not sure what subtle changes can be made as it's a fairly simple and straightforward idea. Whatever subtle distinction you believe I may be making must taking place in your own mind... in fact I can't even imagine what you might think I'm talking about if you think I'm talking about something else.We know how the holes in swiss cheese are made,
And, thanks to something called science, we know why there would be 'gaps' (a possible misnomer) in the fossil record.Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps.
So are you now saying there may be no 'gaps' ...[text shortened]... ificant logical error in your posts and clearly you just can't handle deductive logic.
I'm impressed by your mental gymnastics, and how you are able to completely avoid addressing the contradiction inherent in 1. gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium and 2. punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record. If there are no gaps, in other words there never were transitional species to account for, then your logic would apparently still stand.... 1. would validate 2. and 2. would validate 1.
Granted, it's difficult to form a literal circle from only two points, but the idea is still the same.... a circle is where the first point validates the second which validates the third which validates the fourth etc. until you reach the last point. But it doesn't stop there, because the last point goes on to validate the first point, and thus the circle is able to validate itself. If it cannot be validated outside of itself, then self-validation is the only recourse if the theory itself is to survive.
10 Jul 13
3 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
What I mean by gaps in this context (gaps in the fossil record) is what anyone else means by it. I'm not sure what subtle changes can be made as it's a fairly simple and straightforward idea. Whatever subtle distinction you believe I may be making must taking place in your own mind... in fact I can't even imagine what you might think I'm talking ab of itself, then self-validation is the only recourse if the theory itself is to survive.
If there are no gaps, in other words there never were transitional species to account for
So you HAVE changed the meaning! I did wonder if you did.. Originally, you meant a series of fossils showing continuous gradual change in the fossil record are the 'gaps' -now it is the transitional species.
Obviously, I do not doubt the existence of transitional species! Esp as some of then exists TODAY!
1. gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium and 2. punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record.
And, with this new meaning of “gaps”, this is NOT circular meaning. That is because what is circular reasoning is “we only know X is true because Y is true and we only know Y is true because X is true” but, we KNOW the “gaps” (“gaps” = X ) exist via trivial observation of the fossil record thus it is non circular because we are not justifying our belief that the "gaps" exist with ONLY Y (Y = "punctuated equilibrium" ).
Thus, once again, you have clearly demonstrated logical flaw and inability to handle deductive logic.
Originally posted by humyI meant what I've always meant by gaps. And it is what anyone for decades has ever meant when they talk about gaps. So no, I'm not redefining gaps, but if you are then maybe you should tell us what else it can mean.If there are no gaps, in other words there never were transitional species to account for
So you HAVE changed the meaning! I did wonder if you did.. Originally, you meant a series of fossils showing continuous gradual change in the fossil record are the 'gaps' -now it is the transitional species.
Obviously, I do not doubt the existence o ...[text shortened]... aps” (“gaps” = X ) exist via trivial observation of the fossil record thus it is non circular.
Gaps are the imagined missing evidence of transitional species. It is the imagined transitional forms that create the gaps, and not the actual preserved evidence. If you believe there must have been many transitional forms between evolved species then those gaps exist, if you do not believe transitional forms were needed then those gaps do not exist.
This is not a difficult concept, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with it.
10 Jul 13
2 edits
It seems to me there is a basic misunderstanding of the argument itself. I don't see creationists arguing against speciation per se. What I have seen them saying is analogous to a paper containing raw data, and then by carefully combining and excluding specific data new genetic information can be created. But at the same time, no new raw data has been added or included in this process.
So IMO this is the crux of their argument, that evolution can account for new information arising from the original data, but it cannot account for the original raw data itself. And without that original raw data nothing could have come later based on that data... this seems self explanatory to me, but maybe that's just me.
Excluding abiogenesis works for the convenience of evolutionists who want to only focus on the raw data without having to account for its existence, but reality forces me to consider it as a significant factor whether I want it to be significant or not.
I know I can't ignore it, so maybe this is just a problem for me to work out. If it's not a problem for evolutionists then so be it, and good for them. I'm still not convinced... ignoring elements of the theory I believe are key won't resolve any of the problems I've seen with evolution theory.
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo you are saying that if there was never any cheese in the swiss cheese holes then the holes do not exist?
Gaps are the imagined missing evidence of transitional species. It is the imagined transitional forms that create the gaps, and not the actual preserved evidence. If you believe there must have been many transitional forms between evolved species then those gaps exist, if you do not believe transitional forms were needed then those gaps do not exist.
If there are gaps between species in the fossil record then there are gaps regardless of whether or not those gaps should be filled with transitional species. Your language of saying the gaps themselves don't exist if the traditional species never existed is what is causing the confusion.
Of course your claim that there is circular reasoning is still false.
You are also approaching it from a totally different angle than proponents of punctuate evolution would be. They know that evolution took place, and are trying to understand the fossil record. You start without that knowledge and think they are trying to justify the theory of evolution (which they are not).
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadProponents of PE have grappled with the problem of trying to get their fast acting evolution to co-exist with basic evolutionary principles, so I'm obviously not alone in wondering how this can work. The difference between PE proponents and me is I have no vested interest in trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole... that's their job, not mine.
So you are saying that if there was never any cheese in the swiss cheese holes then the holes do not exist?
If there are gaps between species in the fossil record then there are gaps regardless of whether or not those gaps should be filled with transitional species. Your language of saying the gaps themselves don't exist if the traditional species never ...[text shortened]... at knowledge and think they are trying to justify the theory of evolution (which they are not).
If you're wondering as humy apparently is what I mean by gaps, you need only to read what the proponents of PE say about it. What I'm saying gaps are is the same as what they say gaps are. The reason for PE to exist as a theory came from evolutionists who knew this was a problem that could not be ignored. It was evolutionists who recognised the need to fill the apparent gaps with something. So who exactly is your argument with? Is it with me, or is it with the reputable and credentialed evolutionary scientists who recognised this as a problem needing an explanation?
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen you say that they know evolution took place, that is the famously unnamed key point (the magical ingredient) that causes the circle to be self validating. If you know something is real, then your reasoning can proceed from that knowledge without fear of running into any significant logistical problems.
So you are saying that if there was never any cheese in the swiss cheese holes then the holes do not exist?
If there are gaps between species in the fossil record then there are gaps regardless of whether or not those gaps should be filled with transitional species. Your language of saying the gaps themselves don't exist if the traditional species never ...[text shortened]... at knowledge and think they are trying to justify the theory of evolution (which they are not).
Your own language is very revealing. You are able to claim knowledge in the absence of supporting evidence, because your knowledge is the supporting evidence. Some scientists apparently enjoy a sort of diplomatic immunity when using specious reasoning techniques like this. Coming from anyone else it would sound suspiciously like claiming to have some kind of special knowledge known only to them. Religious cults use this technique all the time... I wouldn't buy this coming from cults any more than I would buy it coming from a reputable and credentialed scientist.