My favourite web page from 30 years ago said,
‘Bored? Lonely? Tired? Then hold a meeting, the practical alternative to work.’
Well, I’m thinking that we’ve discussed all that enough.
I kindly ask you to start a thread of your own on whatever topic you think most needs our attention.
1 Like
‘Fittest’ in that context refers to suitability, not athleticism.
That’s too vague. Specific species? All species? Upper hand in what sense? Numbers? Abilities? Physical strength?
It doesn’t go anywhere. Lions don’t show compassion to vulnerable antelopes. Antelopes don’t show compassion to vulnerable trees. Trees don’t show compassion to vulnerable grasses. Grasses don’t show compassion to vulnerable bacteria. Bacteria don’t show compassion to vulnerable lions.
Also too vague. What balances out? Species go extinct, including through predation. Sometimes large numbers of species go extinct at about the same time, from the same cause.
Natural selection isn’t based purely on optimised adaption. Other effects also play a role, including sexual selection, which was known about long before RichardG ‘studied’ evolution, and which may be the cause of the ‘anomalies and freaks’ of which he didn’t give any examples.
Genomes come from individuals.
Solitary existence makes evolutionary sense for larger organisms that require an area of resources to survive and which would be in direct competition with each other if they were not solitary.
Monogamy makes evolutionary sense for species in which a single parent is insufficient to raise young.
Killing off the mate makes evolutionary sense if the surviving parent thereby gains additional resources to raise young.
Abandoning offspring not only makes evolutionary sense - there is always a trade-off between resources devoted to producing young vs resources devoted to protecting them, and producing and abandoning thousands of young is frequently more successful than producing and raising a few.
Feeding frenzies aren’t long term.
(Moderator edit to remove third person references and personal comments. stick to the arguments and play nice. -Phil)
4 Likes
Absolutely, the unfathomable ocean of ignorant false pattern recognition - apophenia - is an evolutionary triumph that has served us well in all areas. Except science of course. Real pattern recognition is for nerds.
Jut in case the post does not get removed.
I do not think that scientists are ignorant or that I know more than scientists or that what I think is an anyway superior. Since when was disagreement a crime?
I have a basic knowledge of Evolution and evolutionary theory, much of which has not changed in 100 years.
Obviously I know why people spend a lifetime doing science. I have spent a lifetime with my faith. There is no difference in terms of value or dedication.
Naturally I apply my faith to my beliefs. If that is contrary to scientific thought, tough. They do not rule my world and i am not imposing my faith onto them If make an observation on how I see nature, that is my prerogative.
Any justification for Killing off mates, or abandoning children is purely subjective and cannot be claimed as “right”
And that is the crux of all this. Certain people are claiming exact knowledge and truth and correctness that is purely subject to scientific reasoning and methodology. It is not a crime to think differently or to base one’s beliefs and ideals on things other than science.
Nor is it a crime to criticise scientific conclusions or theories
To my knowledge this forum is to encourage dialogue between science and Christianity and not submission or superiority either way.
Richard
1 Like
Reference? I’m not aware of anyone prior to Darwin who thought tetrapods evolved from bony fish.
Like what? You can have fins that also function as legs, as is the case with Tiktaalik roseae, the transitional fossil between bony fish and tetrapods. You can have both lungs and gills.
What are you talking about?
That’s not thinking. That’s just making stuff up from whole cloth.
In what way are they different?
We also have many examples of transitional fossils for the transition between reptiles and mammals.
No mammal has a dinosaur as one of its ancestors. The transitional fossils are found in synapsids which are not dinosaurs.
What???
Then why don’t they? Why is the bat skeleton so much different to a bird skeleton?
Why not? Why can’t there be a species with feathers and three middle ear bones, as one example? Why can’t we find a mixture of bird and mammal features in any species?
5 Likes
Ignorance is omniscient; all knowing, or whatever the neo-Latin is for all-answering. Omnirespondent? And instantaneous, never at a loss. It doesn’t have to think.
1 Like
Doe that mean Scientists are ignorant?
(you said it not me)
Richard
Very little of evolutionary theory has remained unaffected by discoveries over the last century in genetics, fossils and biochemistry. There have also been extensions to the theory involving drift, epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium.
The most basic of these is the discovery that the nested hierarchy originally worked out by Linnaeus almost entirely matches the nested hierarchy obtainable from genomes.
No-one has claimed that they are “right”, only that they work.
No-one has claimed that either.
It isn’t. But in order to criticise scientific conclusions or theories it is necessary to first know what they are, and know what evidence they are based on. Some-one who thinks that much knowledge of evolution and evolutionary theory has not changed in 100 years does not know enough to be taken seriously.
Lack of knowledge is curable. Refusal to acknowledge a lack of knowledge is not.
3 Likes
Tiktaalik was discovered less than 50 years ago.
Consequently:
1 Like
And that is your problem , not mine. [content removed]
I do now, And it changes very little.
Despite your continued claims (ad to a certain extent my own intentions) I learned quite a lot, since i started on this forum. [extraneous content telling other people what they think removed]
Richard
I was told that Tiktaalik was not in direct line. Is that wrong? Because if it isn’t then it is not a transitional creature, it is just parallel evolution. You have heard of parallel evolution, of course.
Richard
Transitional creatures don’t have to be in the direct line of descent. They only have to be descendants of creatures in the direct line of descent.
Even if that wasn’t the case, Tiktaalik wouldn’t be parallel evolution if it was a descendant of a creature that was in the direct line of descent, since it wouldn’t have evolved weight-bearing limbs independently.
This is basic evolutionary theory.
2 Likes
[quote attribution got messed up so including @Roy ]
Basic theory that was described by Darwin himself.
“In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”
5 Likes
Thanx! Fixed.
1 Like
???
an animal about the size of a turkey that they contend was a flightless bird, a transitional figure between some carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds.
—John Noble Wilford
Transitional- Websters Dictionary
For it to be transitional it has to be part of the sequence. That Science has conveniently ignored this element is not my fault.
[content deleted]
The whole point of transient or transitional creatures was to prove the direct ancestry. (as opposed to this ridiculous modern emphasis on Common Ancestry.)
[content deleted]
Richard
Edit @T_aquaticus is on my ignore list so I will not see his answers or questions
That’s false. Always has been.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]
That has always been false. No theory is proven, including the theory of evolution. The whole point of the fossil record is to test the predictions made by the theory of evolution, specifically which features should and should not be found together in the same species.
We have DNA that comes directly from shared ancestry.
Ostrich, meet sand.
4 Likes
Now here’s the thing. What you appear to be claiming is that Tiktaalik was not the first creature to have this sort of fin structure, Instead it had inherited it from an earlier ancestor who, by coincidence had a different line of creatures that became the land creatures. In the mean time Tiktaalik found the structure advantageous in its own right. Of course you do not have this earlier ancestor but Tiktaalik proves the earlier ancestor must have existed. But you can’t show that Tiktaalik did inherit the feature, only that it had it. for all you know Tiktaalik was the first in its line to evolve that structure (but that would be helpful to you). So all it really shows is that some fish have similar bone structure to load bearing ones. All the rest is supposition, exposition and flannel.
And you wonder why I am not convinced.
Richard
Richard - if you’re going to ignore the person who has the capability and takes the time to give you the clearest answers, then it is pointless for you to continue here. If you can’t take the heat, then you should leave the kitchen. I can help with that if needed.
5 Likes
Nope, Tiktaalik’s ancestors found the features advantageous and passed it on to Tiktaalik. Those same ancestors also passed the advantageous features to the species in the direct line leading to modern tetrapods.
What we do know is that the theory of evolution predicted we would find fossils with a mixture of features from lobe finned fish and tetrapods, and that’s exactly what we found.
You are forgetting that those exact features were predicted by the theory of evolution.
4 Likes