The book Darwin Devolves

[tabibito]

Once again, refuting creationist garbage requires nothing more than reading the source they misrepresent:

Source: ibid

Bryophytes such moss, hornworts and liverworts first appeared in the late Ordovician.

© Copyright Original Source

It's also trivial to find articles about Ordovician land animal trace fossils. The first stalked plant may be Silurian, but the first life on land was earlier.

Yep - Silurian life-forms were quite advanced, and the photos prove it.

silurian.jpg

[TheLurch]

"A bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" is what I was referring to, and it does indicate a trend.

A trend of what?

Having jaws or not doesn't sound very gradual.

How much do you know about jaw anatomy, development, and evolutionary origins?

If the answer is "not much", then why do you feel you're in a position to say anything about this?

Well, it would seem to imply that.

Have you thought at all about what you're saying here? You're saying that any time an organism makes its first appearance in the fossil record, that appearance is always sudden. In doing so, you're making the term "sudden" meaningless for any discussion of evolution.

[tabibito]

Have you thought at all about what you're saying here? You're saying that any time an organism makes its first appearance in the fossil record, that appearance is always sudden. In doing so, you're making the term "sudden" meaningless for any discussion of evolution.

As to that, a FOSSIL record of the FIRST occurrence of something can't be anything but sudden. You could at least give him half a point for getting this much right.

[TheLurch]

As to that, a FOSSIL record of the FIRST occurrence of something can't be anything but sudden. You could at least give him half a point for getting this much right.

Well, i believe Rogue brought up cases where we're still arguing over whether something's a reptile or a mammal, so there's also "maybe first?" to deal with...

[shunyadragon]

As to that, a FOSSIL record of the FIRST occurrence of something can't be anything but sudden. You could at least give him half a point for getting this much right.

Actually no, first occurrences most often begin as variations in existing populations, and not something suddenly appearing in the fossil record. It is a given that all we can say about the fossils of different species, subspecies, or varieties is that they are snapshots in time of the evolution of populations. lee_merrill is misusing the fact that the fossil record is incomplete therefore they are best interpreted as sudden appearances, and disproving gradual evolution. Such a useless argument as which came first the chicken or the egg. There really is no evidence for sudden appearances that is conclusive nor even reasonable from the fossil evidence. Nonetheless there is evidence in the fossil record of diversity within populations of subspecies and varieties that reflect later evolution to more specific species for example:

In the fossil evidence of transitional species of bird like dinosaurs there are variations of in characteristics that reflect subspecies and varieties that reflect the transition to later more bird like species.

[lee_merrill]

A trend of what?

A trend of selection picking broken or degraded genes.

How much do you know about jaw anatomy, development, and evolutionary origins?

If the answer is "not much", then why do you feel you're in a position to say anything about this?

Because it's a fairly obvious point, if jawed fish indeed appeared abruptly in the fossil record.

Source: fossilmuseum

The Silurian witnessed substantial evolution of fishes. The first jawed fished appeared and jawless fishes dispersed widely.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Have you thought at all about what you're saying here? You're saying that any time an organism makes its first appearance in the fossil record, that appearance is always sudden. In doing so, you're making the term "sudden" meaningless for any discussion of evolution.

I could see other language being used to denote the gradual development of creatures: "X was developed by this time".

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Once again, refuting creationist garbage requires nothing more than reading the source they misrepresent:

Source: ibid

Bryophytes such moss, hornworts and liverworts first appeared in the late Ordovician.

© Copyright Original Source

It's also trivial to find articles about Ordovician land animal trace fossils. The first stalked plant may be Silurian, but the first life on land was earlier.

Well, then Berkeley is wrong: "It is also in the Silurian that we find the first clear evidence of life on land. While it is possible that plants and animals first moved onto the land in the Ordovician, fossils of terrestrial life from that period are fragmentary and difficult to interpret."

But this isn't a creationist site, it probably reflects one scientific consensus.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

A trend of selection picking broken or degraded genes.

Let me make that accurate for you:

A trend of selection picking broken or degraded genes in response to a single environmental selective pressure.

Which, again, isn't what we were discussing.

Because it's a fairly obvious point, if jawed fish indeed appeared abruptly in the fossil record.
...
I could see other language being used to denote the gradual development of creatures: "X was developed by this time".

So, basically, you want to claim any use of the term "first" means the same as "suddenly" without actually figuring out what the author's intent or the underlying data is. Then, you want to use that distorted meaning as evidence to support your position.

I'm sorry, but does honesty not matter to you?

[shunyadragon]

Well, then Berkeley is wrong: "It is also in the Silurian that we find the first clear evidence of life on land. While it is possible that plants and animals first moved onto the land in the Ordovician, fossils of terrestrial life from that period are fragmentary and difficult to interpret."

But this isn't a creationist site, it probably reflects one scientific consensus.

Blessings,
Lee

Well yes, because the knowledge of fossils and other research advances, If you read the article carefully they may be considered partly right. I will comment on this more later. The the present view is that the appearance of plants onto land is more of a gradual process possibly beginning in the late Cambrian. The following is a 2018 article that describes this gradual process. The article uses a bite of technical language.

Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/E2274

The timescale of early land plant evolution

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Well yes, because the knowledge of fossils and other research advances, If you read the article carefully they may be considered partly right. I will comment on this more later. The the present view is that the appearance of plants onto land is more of a gradual process possibly beginning in the late Cambrian. The following is a 2018 article that describes this gradual process. The article uses a bite of technical language.

That's because it's an actual science paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and not an article

[shunyadragon]

That's because it's an actual science paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and not an article

OK, paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

[lee_merrill]

Let me make that accurate for you:

"A trend of selection picking broken or degraded genes in response to a single environmental selective pressure."

No, there was a range of environmental pressures in the experiment in view here.

So, basically, you want to claim any use of the term "first" means the same as "suddenly" without actually figuring out what the author's intent or the underlying data is.

I'm just going with general usage, since there are ways to express appearance after gradual development.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Well yes, because the knowledge of fossils and other research advances, If you read the article carefully they may be considered partly right. I will comment on this more later. The the present view is that the appearance of plants onto land is more of a gradual process possibly beginning in the late Cambrian. The following is a 2018 article that describes this gradual process.

I think this paper is more concerned about the timescale of appearance of certain plant types rather than the description of a gradual process.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

No, there was a range of environmental pressures in the experiment in view here.

I'm just going with general usage, since there are ways to express appearance after gradual development.e

Why don't you care what the truth is?

[shunyadragon]

I think this paper is more concerned about the timescale of appearance of certain plant types rather than the description of a gradual process.

Blessings,
Lee

'I think' wow jousers! The primary focus of the research paper is the gradual process from the Late Cambrian to the Silurian based on the appearance of certain plant types gradually over millions of years.