The book Darwin Devolves

[Roy]

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

"If" jawed fishes appeared abruptly. Your source doesn't say they did. Abrupt appearance is just something you invented.

This source indicates that they didn't, and describes intermediates.

Your ignorance is still not an argument

[Roy]

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.

No, they're right:

Source: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/ordovician.php

Perhaps the most "groundbreaking" occurrence of the Ordovician was the colonization of the land. Remains of early terrestrial arthropods are known from this time, as are microfossils of the cells, cuticle, and spores of early land plants.

© Copyright Original Source

They're just making a distinction between trace and partial fossils vs clear and obvious ones - that's obvious if you don't quote-mine their article on the Silurian while ignoring the one on the Ordivician.

That's the fifth or sixth quote-mine you've perpetrated this week.

[Roy]

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.

There are. You even cited one:

Source: ibid

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

© Copyright Original Source

But you ignored that mention of substantial evolution and claimed their appearance was abrupt anyway.

I note that you failed to answer this:

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

I'm not surprised, since it clearly doesn't.

[shunyadragon]

No, they're right:

Source: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/ordovician.php

Perhaps the most "groundbreaking" occurrence of the Ordovician was the colonization of the land. Remains of early terrestrial arthropods are known from this time, as are microfossils of the cells, cuticle, and spores of early land plants.

© Copyright Original Source

They're just making a distinction between trace and partial fossils vs clear and obvious ones - that's obvious if you don't quote-mine their article on the Silurian while ignoring the one on the Ordivician.

That's the fifth or sixth quote-mine you've perpetrated this week.

You beat me to it! This is why I previously noted that the Berkley source partly right, but incomplete.

[lee_merrill]

But any of the mutations generated were only selected against a single environmental condition. We don't know if they'd be adaptive in any other conditions.

Source: Behe

of environmental circumstances examined.

© Copyright Original Source

Sure sounds like multiple environmental conditions here!

Why don't you care what the truth is?

I do care, and there are ways to express gradual development: By X time, creature Y had developed.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

No, they're right:

Source: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/ordovician.php

Perhaps the most "groundbreaking" occurrence of the Ordovician was the colonization of the land. Remains of early terrestrial arthropods are known from this time, as are microfossils of the cells, cuticle, and spores of early land plants.

© Copyright Original Source

They're just making a distinction between trace and partial fossils vs clear and obvious ones - that's obvious if you don't quote-mine their article on the Silurian while ignoring the one on the Ordivician.

Well, they're being inconsistent, but I don't mind if land colonization occurred in the Ordivician.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

There are. You even cited one:

Source: ibid

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

© Copyright Original Source

But you ignored that mention of substantial evolution and claimed their appearance was abrupt anyway.

Substantial evolution could be sudden or gradual, though, so we can look at the context to try and determine what is meant.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Sure sounds like multiple environmental conditions here!

Does everyone else get the difference? I've tried really hard to explain it multiple times, and I can't tell whether it's my explanations or Lee's inability to mentally process anything he doesn't like.

I do care, and there are ways to express gradual development.

You don't care, or you'd actually look into the background information on it, instead of trying to play games with semantics.

Nicely demonstrated by your later post.

Substantial evolution could be sudden or gradual, though, so we can look at the context to try and determine what is meant

Here's the thing with science: we could look at the evidence instead. We don't have to rely on attempting to ascribe meanings on ambiguous text. There are underlying facts that can be examined instead.

And then there's you, who couldn't even be bothered to look up the wikipedia entry on the Cambrian, and so made a colossal (30+ million years!) mistake by trying to spin your own interpretation of an ambiguous sentence. In doing so, you make it clear you don't care about facts, and don't care about science.

[shunyadragon]

Substantial evolution could be sudden or gradual, though, so we can look at the context to try and determine what is meant.

Blessings,
Lee

Actually not likely sudden. There is no direct observable evidence for sudden evolution without selective 'arguing from ignorance.' Evolution is environment driven, either changes in the environment, or species moving into other environments. Sudden changes in the environment often cause species to become extinct. What you are interpreting as sudden is when isolated fossils that appear not to have apparent predecessors, or as is most often the case on your part quote-mining, selective out of context references, wiki sound bites, Behe quotes. Yes gaps in the fossil record exist and have always existed, but over time these gaps are filled by new discoveries and research.

[shunyadragon]

Well, they're being inconsistent, but I don't mind if land colonization occurred in the Ordivician.

Blessings,
Lee

Based on the current research it is possible it began in the late Cambrian. Regardless the evidence clearly indicates land plants began as simple forms of plants, and evolved gradually to more complex land plants gradually over millions of years.

[Roy]

Substantial evolution could be sudden or gradual, though, so we can look at the context to try and determine what is meant.

But you didn't. You didn't even quote the next sentence, let alone the descriptions of the fossil specimens depicted, which suggest that some jawless fish were more closely related to jawed fish than others.

Nor did you bother to look for other more relevant and detailed resources, such as the one I found in about 10 seconds.

People who care about the truth check the facts before writing, and make sure they accurately represent their sources. This thread is littered with examples of you not caring about the truth.

[TheLurch]

Sure sounds like multiple environmental conditions here!

Ok, i've thought of another way of going at this. Pick any one mutation identified in that work. How many environmental conditions do we know it's adaptive for?

[Seeker]

I will give lee_merill credit for at least being argumentative enough to keep you guys focused and entertained. And for being incredibly stubborn.

[lee_merrill]

There is no direct observable evidence for sudden evolution without selective 'arguing from ignorance.' ... Yes gaps in the fossil record exist and have always existed, but over time these gaps are filled by new discoveries and research.

So are you implying that the scientists who believe in punctuated equilibrium are deluded?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Ok, i've thought of another way of going at this. Pick any one mutation identified in that work. How many environmental conditions do we know it's adaptive for?

I found the paper in question:

Source: PLoS

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So mutations (plural) and environments (plural) indicates the principle holds in general, across all environments. Also there is this:

Source: PLoS

similar to the mechanism of action of a recently characterized rho hypomorph that proved beneficial in more than ten different conditions.

© Copyright Original Source

So this it seems is one mutation that is beneficial in ten conditions.

Blessings,
Lee