Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Discontinuous Fossil Record Refutes Darwinian Gradualism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Bechly writes here: "When you have reached this point of mostly repetition, then you know that you have sampled enough to be sure that you have not missed much that is out there to find. ... In most groups of fossils, we have reached this point of demonstrable saturation,"

    This is not personal incredulity, this is a specific claim about the fossil record.
    That has nothing to do with what I quoted. Do I have to explain your own argument for you, or would you like to re-read it and try again?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Bechly writes here: "When you have reached this point of mostly repetition, then you know that you have sampled enough to be sure that you have not missed much that is out there to find. ... In most groups of fossils, we have reached this point of demonstrable saturation,"

      This is not personal incredulity, this is a specific claim about the fossil record.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      It is a claim of 'personal incredulity' by Bechly without any competence nor credibility in science,
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-10-2021, 01:08 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        That has nothing to do with what I quoted. Do I have to explain your own argument for you, or would you like to re-read it and try again?
        Well, you were seeming to dismiss Bechly's whole article with an accusation of personal incredulity, thus it seems appropriate to point out this other quote. But let's deal with your quote:

        Originally posted by lee_merrill
        Based on what Bechly says just after this: "... a window of time of 5-10 million years is very abrupt indeed. Why is this so? Because the average longevity of an invertebrate or vertebrate species (not an individual organism) varies between 2.5-10 million years. This means that a transition that required 5-10 million years happened within the lifespan of a single species! This is much too short to allow for Darwinian evolution to explain the required changes."
        Now this is not personal incredulity, Bechly gives a reason for his conclusion, to refute his conclusion, you have to refute his reasoning.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Well, you were seeming to dismiss Bechly's whole article with an accusation of personal incredulity, thus it seems appropriate to point out this other quote. But let's deal with your quote:


          Now this is not personal incredulity, Bechly gives a reason for his conclusion, to refute his conclusion, you have to refute his reasoning.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Reasoning refuted as I posted. Bechly has no credibility in the sciences related to evolution. Giving a reason for his conclusions based on a religious agenda is NOT science.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Reasoning? You mean "Bechly gives a reason for his conclusion, to refute his conclusion, you have to refute his reasoning."?

            the average longevity of an invertebrate or vertebrate species (not an individual organism) varies between 2.5-10 million years. This means that a transition that required 5-10 million years happened within the lifespan of a single species! This is much too short to allow for Darwinian evolution to explain the required changes.


            That is not a reason - it is an unsupported assertion. Significant differences can in fact develop within five generations, with one group irrevocably changing while the other (from the same original source group) doesn't, and both populations continue to exist independently. Relatively insignificant changes might or might not continue in either or both of the groups to the eventual point that they can not interbreed.

            In rails, there can be a change from flying to flightless with the attendant physiological changes in bone structure of the legs that are advantageous to living wholly on land - and their bones generally become too dense to make flight possible. Not a marked change, but it can occur within five generations - maybe as short a time as five to ten years.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publica...of_the_Pacific
            The nesting of the flightless species G. pendiculentus with G. philippensis suggests that the flightless condition may evolve prior to reproductive isolation. A locally calibrated relaxed molecular clock indicates that species from Oceania evolved only within the last 400,000 years, supporting the hypothesis that speciation proceeds rapidly in flightless rails.


            Note that more than one species is referred to.
            Last edited by tabibito; 12-11-2021, 12:18 AM.
            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
            "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post


              Now this is not personal incredulity, Bechly gives a reason for his conclusion, to refute his conclusion, you have to refute his reasoning.
              His reasoning is based upon incredulity.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                His reasoning is based upon incredulity.
                That too
                1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  His reasoning is based upon incredulity.
                  Yes, Lee should detail exactly what evidence he presents that things are "much too short for Darwinian evolution."
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    the average longevity of an invertebrate or vertebrate species (not an individual organism) varies between 2.5-10 million years. This means that a transition that required 5-10 million years happened within the lifespan of a single species! This is much too short to allow for Darwinian evolution to explain the required changes.


                    That is not a reason - it is an unsupported assertion. Significant differences can in fact develop within five generations...
                    Bechly is a published scientist, so his statements should be based on his knowledge. And again, this is an average that he gives, and the average is certainly not five generations! And Bechly is talking about the development of new body plans, not loss of function.

                    And rogue06 basically confirmed Bechly's estimate here:

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Finally, FWIU, the average species has a "lifespan" of somewhere between 1 and 10 million years.
                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Yes, Lee should detail exactly what evidence he presents that things are "much too short for Darwinian evolution."
                      Bechly is talking about transitions to new body plans in 5 to 10 million years, such as in the Cambrian explosion. If this is indeed in the lifespan of an average species, then this is too short for Darwinian evolution.

                      Source: Berkeley

                      In perhaps as few as 10 million years, marine animals evolved most of the basic body forms that we observe in modern groups.

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Last edited by lee_merrill; 12-11-2021, 03:55 PM.
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A few assertions completely unattached to even a scintilla of evidence.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, you were seeming to dismiss Bechly's whole article with an accusation of personal incredulity, thus it seems appropriate to point out this other quote. But let's deal with your quote:


                          Now this is not personal incredulity, Bechly gives a reason for his conclusion, to refute his conclusion, you have to refute his reasoning.
                          In order to refute Bechly's reasoning, someone has to precisely state his reasoning. Since he didn't do it, I'll give it a shot:

                          1) The average longevity of a species is between 2.5-10 million years.

                          2) The average longevity of a species is too short a time for the appearance of a new group of organisms with a new body plan, given Darwinian evolution.

                          Therefore,

                          3) Darwinian evolution can't explain a new group of organisms with a new body plan appearing within 5-10 million years.

                          The weak link in Bechly's reasoning appears to be (2), for which he provides no argument or evidence.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            https://biocyclopedia.com/index/gene...gradualism.php
                            If new species originated in single, catastrophic events, we should be able to see such events happening today and we do not. Instead, what we observe in natural populations are small, continuous changes in phenotypes. Such continuous changes can produce major differences among species only by accumulating over many thousands to millions of years. A simple statement of Darwin’s theory of gradualism is that accumulation of quantitative changes leads to qualitative change.
                            Populational gradualism states that new traits become established in a population by increasing their frequency initially from a small fraction of the population to a majority of the population. Populational gradualism is well established and is not controversial. Phenotypic gradualism states that new traits, even those that are strikingly different from ancestral ones, are produced in a series of small, incremental steps.
                            Phenotypic gradualism was controversial when Darwin first proposed it, and it is still controversial. Not all phenotypic changes are small, incremental ones ... Such mutations traditionally are called “sports.”


                            As is to be expected, the concept Darwinian gradualism has been refined in the time since he first introduced it, and current thought favours punctuated equilibrium, which basically affirms gradualism being the norm but with the occasional burst of rapid changes. Radical transitions can occur within 5000 to 50000 years.
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                            "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Bechly is a published scientist, so his statements should be based on his knowledge.
                              And he agrees with what you believe so that makes him doubly right.

                              Credentialism at its worst.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                https://biocyclopedia.com/index/gene...gradualism.php
                                If new species originated in single, catastrophic events, we should be able to see such events happening today and we do not. Instead, what we observe in natural populations are small, continuous changes in phenotypes. Such continuous changes can produce major differences among species only by accumulating over many thousands to millions of years. A simple statement of Darwin’s theory of gradualism is that accumulation of quantitative changes leads to qualitative change.
                                Populational gradualism states that new traits become established in a population by increasing their frequency initially from a small fraction of the population to a majority of the population. Populational gradualism is well established and is not controversial. Phenotypic gradualism states that new traits, even those that are strikingly different from ancestral ones, are produced in a series of small, incremental steps.
                                Phenotypic gradualism was controversial when Darwin first proposed it, and it is still controversial. Not all phenotypic changes are small, incremental ones ... Such mutations traditionally are called “sports.”


                                As is to be expected, the concept Darwinian gradualism has been refined in the time since he first introduced it, and current thought favours punctuated equilibrium, which basically affirms gradualism being the norm but with the occasional burst of rapid changes. Radical transitions can occur within 5000 to 50000 years.
                                In my first post I quoted part of something I posted awhile back showing that gradualism is still observed in many organisms particularly in "microfossils like those of the single-celled organisms foraminifera, radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithorids." To finish with that earlier post which deals with the frequency of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium

                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                                ​​​​​​​[...]

                                And there are still papers being published on fossil data that shows that gradualistic evolutionary change is still recognized as completely legitimate: Gradual evolution in bacteria: evidence from Bacillus systematic and here is an earlier one: Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.

                                In fact, Eldredge and Gould went out of their way to repeatedly point out that Punk Eek in no way supplanted gradualism but worked alongside of it as Donald Prothero notes in a review of the subject:

                                Source: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, pages 42-43


                                As Gould and Eldredge (1977) pointed out in their five-year retrospective on the debate, it's easy to pick one specific example of either gradualism or punctuation, but the important issue is one of generality. Which pattern is dominant among the species in the fossil record, since both are known to occur? If you sample all the members of a given fauna, which pattern is most common? In the twenty years since the paper, more and more case studies have been generated, and by now a pattern seems to be emerging (Gould, 1992; Stanley, 1992).

                                It is now clear that among microscopic protistans, gradualism does seem to prevail (Hayami and Ozawa, 1975; Scott, 1982; Arnold, 1983; Malmgren and Kennett, 1981; Malmgren et al., 1983; Wei and Kennett, 1988, on foraminiferans; Kellogg and Hays, 1975; Kellogg, 1983; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1986, on radiolarians, and Sorhannus et al., 1988; Fenner et al., 1989; Sorhannus,1990, on diatoms). As discussed by Gould and Eldredge (1977) and Lazarus (1983), this may be due to the fact that most of these organisms are either asexual clones, or show alternation of of sexual and asexual generations.


                                Source

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                So the observations actually reveal that both take place. It isn't an either-or situation but rather a complementary one and depends upon the circumstances. So as Prothero notes, Eldredge and Gould were aware of examples of both gradualism and PE, and like everyone else, wondered "which pattern is dominant." ... Therefore, the only question that remains is which process is the dominant one.

                                Source: Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level


                                A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


                                Source

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Further, the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted:

                                Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition


                                Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.


                                Source

                                © Copyright Original Source




                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 05-13-2022, 10:17 PM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 05-11-2022, 05:03 AM
                                6 responses
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 05-04-2022, 08:32 AM
                                1 response
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 04-30-2022, 12:27 PM
                                49 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 04-28-2022, 09:14 PM
                                1 response
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X