JAM
Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007
|
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 09 2008,19:26) | Alright JAM, once and for all...
You are missing the point Schindewolf is making. |
No, I understand the point he was trying to make, and moreover, I understand why it is untenable today. Schindewolf has an excuse, but you don't. Quote | "The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of transitional forms." |
Quote | What are "those very points" of which Schindewolf speaks? |
The discontinuities between what he refers to as "types," of course, which can mean anything from phyla to genera. Quote | Here's the context of the quote you misrepresent: |
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Quote | When, therefore, the preserved material is sufficient to substantiate continuous evolutionary lineages within the individual structural designs,... |
Yes, Dan, and that's why, in the context of "structural designs," which is bullshit if taken literally, I have been asking you questions that you have avoided, because in your shallow little soul, you know full well that you are wrong: -------------- Quote (JAM @ Jan. 01 2008,20:33) | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 01 2008,18:53) | He tested his predictions as any paleontologist would - by excavating and sifting through fossils. |
Dan, you lie like a rug. The way that paleontologists test predictions of their hypotheses is by predicting the locations, time of deposition, and morphologies of fossils BEFORE THEY FIND THEM, not after. Tiktaalik is a fine example of this sort of prediction.
SCHINDEWOLF PRODUCED NO DATA FROM TESTING THE PREDICTIONS OF HIS HYPOTHESIS. Do the caps help? Quote | He produced much data himself during this period and continued his pursuit of fossils until his death in 1971. |
You are a deeply dishonest man, Dan. I didn't claim that Schindewolf produced no data, I pointed out that SCHINDEWOLF PRODUCED NO DATA FROM TESTING THE PREDICTIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS WITH WHICH YOU ARE ENAMORED.
Can't you read? Quote | As of this date, I am not aware of anything found in the fossil record that falsifies his theory. Are you? |
You are blatantly dishonest, Dan, as Schindewolf's hypothesis makes clear predictions about the molecular evidence, and what we know about molecular and developmental biology falsifies his hypothesis.
For example,
1) What magnitude of genetic change is required to change the number of vertebrae in a vertebrate? 2) What magnitude of genetic change is required to change the IDENTITY of a vertebra in a vertebrate? | [/quote] ------------ Note that I was not avoiding context, I am PROVIDING context, while you are avoiding context. Quote | Quote | it should follow, if the assumption of a gradual bridging of the type boundaries by means of small developmental steps is correct, that the same situation applies between them. |
|
Dan, THIS ASSUMPTION IS FALSE. That's why I keep asking you those questions about vertebrae and "hind limb genes." Quote | Quote | Moreover, in view of the significant differences we see among the organizations of the individual types,... |
|
If you think the assumption is true, then define Schindewolf's "significant differences" in terms of numbers of nucleotide changes.
Can you face reality long enough to see that this has been the purpose of my questions that you are avoiding?
Can you park your inflated ego long enough to see that my harping on your false claims about "hind limb genes" and "tail genes" PROVIDES CONTEXT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE FALSEHOOD OF SCHINDEWOLF'S ASSUMPTIONS (despite the tales about his ego, at least he, unlike you, has the integrity to properly label some of his assumptions)? Quote | It is quite easy to see, from the context you avoid, that Schindewolf is talking specifically about gaps between "types" - which he also refers to as "structural designs". These types are said to have "significant differences" between them. |
Yes, but referring to them as "structural designs" shows the circularity of his (and your) argument. I have been putting this in an evidentiary context for you, and you run away, because you know full well that you are lying. Quote | Your contention that Schindewolf is just talking about "gaps in the fossil record" is a bogus strawman. |
Yet I've been providing context, and you've been avoiding it. Quote | Tell me specifically what Schindewolf meant by "types"? |
Schindewolf uses the term "types" in many different contexts throughout the book; it simply means "taxa," and he uses it to refer to everything from phyla to genera. That is why it is profoundly stupid to take a translation literally.
Hmmm...can you think of another famous book for which that problem also exists? One that is full of obvious parables that some arrogant, ignorant idiots think we should take literally? Quote | Have you ever bothered JAM, to look at the evidence Schindewolf has amassed in support of his claim? |
Yes, and I'm not impressed. That's why I keep asking you these questions about vertebrae and "hind limb genes." If you were impressed, you'd take me up on them; in reality, you have no real faith in your position. Quote | His book is full of figures and tables. There are even pictures! |
That's nice. But what about the evidence he omitted, and the mountains of evidence we've acquired since? You're dishonestly ignoring all that, because you have no faith that you can predict any of it. Quote | You should really look into it a bit more before making assumptions such as these. |
I did. That's why I have been asking you the contextual questions that show Schindewolf's most fundamental assumptions to be wrong.
|