Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBechly 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,
LeeLast 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
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostThat 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?
Originally posted by lee_merrillBased 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."
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
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, 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,
LeeGlendower: 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
-
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 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostHis reasoning is based upon incredulity.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Postthe 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...
And rogue06 basically confirmed Bechly's estimate here:
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostFinally, FWIU, the average species has a "lifespan" of somewhere between 1 and 10 million years.
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
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostYes, Lee should detail exactly what evidence he presents that things are "much too short for Darwinian evolution."
Blessings,
LeeLast 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, 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.
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBechly is a published scientist, so his statements should be based on his knowledge.
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
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Posthttps://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.
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:
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.
Further, the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted:
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 Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment