Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... >

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,11:02    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 08 2008,17:51)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:36) Yes, I was wrong (although I was being a bit facetious) when I spoke of the "hind-leg gene".  I do know that there is no such thing - I just don't bother responding to most of your posts or accusations.  I'm only responding to this now because you continually bring it up as if it somehow defines me. Well, it does define you, unfortunately. I suspect that you had no idea of the ludicrousness of your position about "hind leg genes" when you first posted it. If you did, you would have said something at the time. But you didn't do that; you let it fester, hoping it would eventually subside. Now when you say you "know" that there is no such thing, it rings hollow. Why didn't you say that when it mattered, and admit that you were clueless about modern evo-devo evidence? Sorry, Daniel, but it doesn't matter now. You had a chance to prove that you were indeed sincere in this discussion, by admitting that you were mistaken. By acting as if you knew it all along, you have defined yourself fairly concretely as just another creationist poser. Let me just say this about that:  Almost every post here has accused me of ignorance, lying, hypocrisy, or some other wrongdoing.  If I took the time to respond to every point raised in objection to my posts, I'd have very little time left in the day for other things.  So, I try to limit my responses (mostly anyway) to the most important matters regarding the current discussion.  JAM is bringing up things that were said weeks ago on a whole different topic.  What relevance does that have now?  Besides, I responded to JAMs objections to my mistake about humpback whales and he still brings it up!  So, I figure responding to his accusations is pretty much a lost cause.  I only do it occasionally when he repeats his accusations so often it starts to sway the debate.  I had hoped that reasonable people could see through his tactics and would give me the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe I was wrong about that. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,13:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 09 2008,11:02) If I took the time to respond to every point raised in objection to my posts, I'd have very little time left in the day for other things. Maybe that should tell you something... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,13:51    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:36)       Quote (JAM @ Feb. 08 2008,07:21) I'm telling you that you are afraid of evidence. I'm telling you that you fabricate evidence when your political positions are threatened by real evidence, as you did when you claimed that the isthmus of Panama isolated Atlantic and Pacific humpback whale populations, a claim that an 8-year-old can see is false by glancing at a globe. You also fabricated evidence when you made the inadvertent prediction (based on your hypothesis of how our bodies were designed by God) that "hind limb genes" even existed, a dishonest claim that you lack the integrity to either support or retract. Yes, I was wrong (although I was being a bit facetious) when I spoke of the "hind-leg gene". BS. You even expanded upon it.     Quote I do know that there is no such thing - ORLY? Then why did you write the following?     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 18 2007,19:19)         Quote (JAM @ Nov. 18 2007,15:30)   A) Do you predict that whales will be missing a hind-leg gene? Not necessarily - though I predict it will be suppressed as to it's full development.  IOW, the non-coding "support cast" for that gene will be markedly different from animals that have fully developed hind legs.                     Quote Do you predict that monkeys have a tail gene that humans lack? No.  I predict that their "tail gene(s)" (at least the protein coding parts) may be similar to ours, but all their various regulatory and support elements will be markedly different from ours.  Theirs will have much more activity and development in these non-coding areas - possibly evidenced by a markedly higher level of histone activity.  Ours will be suppressed.     Quote I just don't bother responding to most of your posts or accusations. Non sequitur, as you did respond to this in a completely nonfacetious way.   Quote I'm only responding to this now because you continually bring it up as if it somehow defines me. It does. You responded to it before, and then you ran away, because you lack the integrity to admit that you were wrong.   Quote Also, I already explained the whale thing so let it go. No, you did not explain it. I still have no idea how you could have inferred something so spectacularly wrong from what you read.   Quote And now I'm going to rephrase my position on the Moyne & Neige paper specifically for your anal-retentive benefit: [b]I looked at their evidence</b> and found that it supports Schindewolf's classifications of middle Jurassic ammonites. You're a fundamentally dishonest joke. I never challenged Schindewolf's classifications of anything. I challenged his assumption, that I have now quoted for you at least four times:   Quote [b]"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." What don't you understand about this?   Quote Now, it is up to you to show that it does not. No, arrogant, dishonest fake Christians like you do not get to revise my challenge. It stands perfectly well, and your repeated, deliberate misrepresentation of it shows that you know I'm right.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,16:17    JAM, you are most definitely a BOLD fellow. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,16:51    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,13:51)         Quote And now I'm going to rephrase my position on the paper specifically for your anal-retentive benefit: I looked at their evidence and found that it supports Schindewolf's classifications of middle Jurassic ammonites. You're a fundamentally dishonest joke. I never challenged Schindewolf's classifications of anything. I challenged his assumption, that I have now quoted for you at least four times:             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." What don't you understand about this? So, what in the name of Darwin (may his name be eternally praised) does the Moyne & Neige paper have to do with     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." ? Let the Delphic Oracle speak... -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,17:15    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 09 2008,16:51) So, what in the name of Darwin (may his name be eternally praised) does the Moyne & Neige paper have to do with       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." ? The gaps are, to a large extent, blamed on the incompleteness of the fossil record in Schindewolf's day. Thus, they are largely illusory. This negative assumption is integral to Schindewolf's thesis, and it's hooey. Note also that to credibly assert a negative, one needs a LOT of evidence, and Daniel has zero interest in determining whether any gaps in the ammonite fossil record have been bridged in the last 50 years by new finds.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,18:30    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,17:15)       Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 09 2008,16:51) So, what in the name of Darwin (may his name be eternally praised) does the Moyne & Neige paper have to do with               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." ? The gaps are, to a large extent, blamed on the incompleteness of the fossil record in Schindewolf's day. Thus, they are largely illusory. This negative assumption is integral to Schindewolf's thesis, and it's hooey. Note also that to credibly assert a negative, one needs a LOT of evidence, and Daniel has zero interest in determining whether any gaps in the ammonite fossil record have been bridged in the last 50 years by new finds. Yeah, of course you're right in principle.  And of course Schindewolf was insane to predict that transitional forms would never be found, because their existence would be "not even possible or conceivable" (page 106). But, but , but isn't the devil in the details?  That Moyne and Neige and others have added new data is great.  But is it too much to ask you to point out how their data fill the gaps that Schindewolf made such a stink about? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,19:26    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,11:51)                 Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 08 2008,19:36) And now I'm going to rephrase my position on the Moyne & Neige paper specifically for your anal-retentive benefit: I looked at their evidence and found that it supports Schindewolf's classifications of middle Jurassic ammonites. You're a fundamentally dishonest joke. I never challenged Schindewolf's classifications of anything. I challenged his assumption, that I have now quoted for you at least four times:                     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." What don't you understand about this?                     Quote Now, it is up to you to show that it does not. Alright JAM, once and for all... You are missing the point Schindewolf is making.                 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." What are "those very points" of which Schindewolf speaks? Here's the context of the quote you misrepresent:               Quote When, therefore, the preserved material is sufficient to substantiate continuous evolutionary lineages within the individual structural designs, 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.  Moreover, in view of the significant differences we see among the organizations of the individual types, a connecting series of the sort just referred to would not even have to have been very long or composed of many members.  However, there are no special conditions whatsoever in the fossil record that would indicate that gaps had repeatedly affected only the sequences that connect structural designs.  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. Basic Questions in Paleontology, pg. 105, italics his, bold mine 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.   Your contention that Schindewolf is just talking about "gaps in the fossil record" is a bogus strawman.  That is why you have convinced yourself that modern evidence, (which does fill up gaps within the individual structural designs, and even reveals new types), somehow falsifies Schindewolf's contention that the gaps between structural designs will not be filled. Tell me specifically what Schindewolf meant by "types"?  Then explain to me which "gaps between types" were filled by the evidence in the Moyne & Neige paper?  You obviously know these things else surely you would not have made such a claim. Have you ever bothered JAM, to look at the evidence Schindewolf has amassed in support of his claim?  His book is full of figures and tables.  There are even pictures!  You should really look into it a bit more before making assumptions such as these. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,19:41    Hey Daniel, As has been explained to you those gaps of his don't exist--no matter where they are.  To argue that they really do exist, please tell me where my argument above goes wrong. Tell me why those gaps aren't the ones Schindewolf was proposing.  I'll reproduce it here for your convenience: Quote ToE (Common Descent) ----------------------------             A             /\           B   C          / \    \        D    E   F       / \    /   /\ \     G   H  I   J K L Schindewolf's Idea? ----------------------------           A          /        B       C                   \    D              F   /               / \ G   H     I    J    K          L -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,22:13    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.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,04:52    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,22:13)     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? ------------ 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." I don't think the student is going to get it on his own. Here's a clue, Dan: "Endless forms most beautiful..." -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,19:27    Quote (blipey @ Feb. 09 2008,17:41) Hey Daniel, As has been explained to you those gaps of his don't exist--no matter where they are.  To argue that they really do exist, please tell me where my argument above goes wrong. Tell me why those gaps aren't the ones Schindewolf was proposing.  I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:         Quote ToE (Common Descent) ----------------------------             A             /\           B   C          / \    \        D    E   F       / \    /   /\ \     G   H  I   J K L Schindewolf's Idea? ----------------------------           A          /        B       C                   \    D              F   /               / \ G   H     I    J    K          L Schindewolf's gaps are represented by the lines between the letters on your diagram.   It doesn't matter how many letters you add, it's the discontinuities between them that matter.  (Schindewolf advocated common descent BTW) To clarify also:  His position is not based on the many and obvious gaps in the fossil record amongst most known forms - such as mammals.  His position is based on those forms that are well represented in the fossil record. Here's an example:             A            /  \           B   C           B   /\           B  D E             In this example, the lineage B extends through the period where the lineage C splits and forms D and E.  The problem, according to Schindewolf, is that although we have ample fossilized evidence of the B, C, D, and E lineages throughout this period, there is no evidence of the transition from 'C to D' or from 'C to E' at all.  C disappears and D and E appear suddenly while B is all the while well represented. According to Schindewolf, this pattern is repeated throughout the fossil record. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,20:25    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 10 2008,19:27) The problem, according to Schindewolf, is that although we have ample fossilized evidence of the B, C, D, and E lineages throughout this period, there is no evidence of the transition from 'C to D' or from 'C to E' at all. Schindewolf's thesis is based on artifact if the gaps are filled. Organisms move, ocean currents shift, continents move. The mechanistic problem (which in your soul you know is real, because you are too cowardly to answer my questions) is that neither you nor Schindewolf have quantified the evolutionary distance from 'C to D' or from 'C to E' in terms of mutations. Schindewolf's thesis is mechanistically vapid if the number of mutations required is one, as no intermediate form would have existed. I'll ask you again, just so you can feel the shame of running away from legitimate questions: 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? Now, if you are a Christian who honestly believes that Schindewolf was correct, why won't you answer them and test his hypothesis against the evidence? Schindewolf has an excuse now--he's dead. What's yours?

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,09:45    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 10 2008,19:27) Here's an example:             A            /  \           B   C           B   /\           B  D E             In this example, the lineage B extends through the period where the lineage C splits and forms D and E.  The problem, according to Schindewolf, is that although we have ample fossilized evidence of the B, C, D, and E lineages throughout this period, there is no evidence of the transition from 'C to D' or from 'C to E' at all.  C disappears and D and E appear suddenly while B is all the while well represented. According to Schindewolf, this pattern is repeated throughout the fossil record. Help!  In the context of Grundfragen, pp 125-145 (Ammonoids) can you cite examples of C, D and E and what a "transition" would have looked like if it were to be found?   What was Schindewolf looking for that he couldn't find? Those escargots look so much alike to the untrained eye, don't you know? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,18:44    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 11 2008,07:45)                     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 10 2008,19:27) Here's an example:             A            /  \           B   C           B   /\           B  D E             In this example, the lineage B extends through the period where the lineage C splits and forms D and E.  The problem, according to Schindewolf, is that although we have ample fossilized evidence of the B, C, D, and E lineages throughout this period, there is no evidence of the transition from 'C to D' or from 'C to E' at all.  C disappears and D and E appear suddenly while B is all the while well represented. According to Schindewolf, this pattern is repeated throughout the fossil record. Help!  In the context of Grundfragen, pp 125-145 (Ammonoids) can you cite examples of C, D and E and what a "transition" would have looked like if it were to be found?   What was Schindewolf looking for that he couldn't find? Those escargots look so much alike to the untrained eye, don't you know? OK,  keep in mind that these are my own interpretations of Schindewolf.   Schindewolf held that:   1) IF Darwin's gradualism was true, and 2) IF all creatures had somehow miraculously been fossilized (he knew they weren't so please don't go down that route), 3) THEN a perfect fossil record would look something like this:                         AA                       AA Aa                      Ab    ac                     AB      aC                    bB         cC                  BB bb        CC                Bd                Ce              Bf  dd           Cg  Ce            bf       dD       cg     CE          bF          DD    cG        eE     Notice that each graduation is a slight change from the one above and that a continuous chain is formed.  (Note: I have not depicted stasis at all in this example for the sake of space.) Then, allowing for gaps in the fossilization of specimens, it would look something like this:                       AA Aa                           AB     aC                    BB bb        CC                 Bd               Ce             bf     dD       cg     CE          bF         DD   cG          eE Notice how, even with the missing links, it is fairly easy to hypothesize what they would have been based on the remaining links of the once continuous chain. However, (again according to my interpretation of Schindewolf), the actual fossil record looks more like this:                            AA                  BB    Aa     CC          DD    BB    aA     CC          Dd    Bb     aa     CC          dD    bb              CC          dd     bb             CC                                  CC                                  CC                            EE   CC                            Ee   CC  FF                GG        eE         Ff                GG        ee         fF                GG                     ff Two capital letters = basic body plan One capital, one small = variation within the body plan two small letters = overspecialized / degeneration Notice how the CC lineage doesn't change much from the simple original body plan?  Schindewolf noticed that it was the more stable lineages that tended to continue longer and become the root stock for the next phase of typogenesis.  All the overspecialized lineages died out.  (For an example of this from Schindewolf's book, I would recommend pages 140-143 where he goes into some detail on the evolution of suture lines in the Triassic and Jurassic ammonoids.)   As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. This is why virtually every chart depicting the fossil record you'll ever see will have thick vertical lines (representing actual fossils found) and dotted horizontal and diagonal lines (representing projected descent) between them. This is why also, such classifications are so hotly debated. Also, I did find BQiP online - though there are many pages missing for copyright reasons.  Still, it's a good place for those without the book to look at it.  It's also a place to link to some of the charts and figures Schindewolf used, such as this one. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,19:12    [quote=JAM,Feb. 09 2008,20:13]     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 09 2008,19:26)     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 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. I'd recommend, for anyone interested in what Schindewolf meant by the term "type", the excellent analysis of the early and mid twentieth century German concept of typology as it relates to biological evolution, written by Georgy S. Levit and Kay Meister, entitled "The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s ‘‘Essentialism Story’’: A case study of German idealistic morphology" link Here's the Abstract:     Quote Idealistic morphology as perhaps the most important historical manifestation of typology is very suitable for a historical analysis of Ernst Mayr’s ‘‘Essentialism Story’’, which postulates an antagonism between ‘‘typological thinking’’ and ‘‘population thinking’’. We show that German-language idealistic-morphological theories consisted of two clearly distinguishable parts. The cornerstone of these theories was the concept of the type as an abstract pattern representing a certain class of phenomena and embodying the norm of this class. The primary objective of pure typology was to create a non-phylogenetic classification system for living organisms based on structurally explicable characters. Thus, typology, as a non-phylogenetic foundation of idealistic morphology, was conceptually neutral with respect to hypotheses of evolutionary mechanisms. Typology was often accompanied by concepts such as Lamarckism, orthogenesis, creationism, essentialism, etc. These peripheral (with respect to pure typology) concepts were autonomous constructions and did not represent a direct logical consequence of typology. In our view ‘‘population thinking’’, as part of the Darwinian theory of evolutionary mechanism, could not be directly opposed to ‘‘typological thinking’’. Rather, it was peripheral concepts such as essentialism or creationism that led to conflicts between the Modern Synthesis and idealistic morphology. (Emphasis mine) -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,19:15    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44) As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. If you can't see any differences then why do you accept Schindewolf's claim that they are so different that he could not envision what a transitional would look like? You should be paying attention to his evidence, not his views. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,20:18    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,20:13) But what about the evidence he omitted, and the mountains of evidence we've acquired since? JAM, can you--for once--cite a legitimate example of evidence that Schindewolf ignored or of modern evidence that falsifies his theory? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,07:00    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44) As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. Thanks for your reply, Daniel, but it was not responsive to my request for examples of the ammonites that Schindewolf was discussing in his chapter. Regarding the quote above, where did Schindewolf say that?  How could that be true in every case where a transitional might be posited?  How could he find (or fail to find) a transitional if he didn't know what it might look like? I hope you will understand my confusion. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,07:39    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44) As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. It appears that you are mistaken.   Quote The detailed succession of ammonites will be shown in the Lower Oxfordian and lowermost part of the Middle Oxfordian up to the Plicatilis/Transversarium boundary; the overlying Middle and Upper Oxfordian (up to Bifurcatus Zone) will be presented i.a. in the Zawodzie Quarry at Cz?stochowa. The youngest Oxfordian deposits including the famous Amoeboceras layers - the beds rich in Boreal and Subboreal ammonites within the Submediterranean ammonite succession of the Bimammatum Zone, will be shown in the Cz?stochowa Upland and the Wielu? Upland. You missed that field trip however.   Quote The Aalenian–Bajocian transition is a critical period in ammonite evolution; hence the Early Jurassic fauna are replaced by new ammonite families which become dominant throughout the Middle and Late Jurassic. http://tiny.cc/3Bdvw   Quote Based on a continuous succession of ammonite and calcareous nannofossil assemblages, the main purpose of this paper is the correlation between ammonite and calcareous nannofossil zone boundaries in two expanded sections from the Basque-Cantabrian area. http://users.unimi.it/rips/110/110N1.htm   Quote Yet among the tens of thousands of specimens dug up by collectors, no one has ever found a specimen that is part way between Hoplites dentatus and Euhoplites lautus or between lautus and Mortoniceras inflatum—or between any of the fourteen different ammonites.4 OK, I threw that last one in there from ICR as I suspect that's where you are coming from Daniel. http://www.icr.org/article/27/10/ Daniel, don't you think it's troublesome that you are taking the side of ICR in this "debate". Any anyway Daniel, every time a "missing link" is filled people like you simply claim "ah-ha, but now there are TWO extra missing links". -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,08:19    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 12 2008,05:39) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44) As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. It appears that you are mistaken.     Quote The detailed succession of ammonites will be shown in the Lower Oxfordian and lowermost part of the Middle Oxfordian up to the Plicatilis/Transversarium boundary; the overlying Middle and Upper Oxfordian (up to Bifurcatus Zone) will be presented i.a. in the Zawodzie Quarry at Cz?stochowa. The youngest Oxfordian deposits including the famous Amoeboceras layers - the beds rich in Boreal and Subboreal ammonites within the Submediterranean ammonite succession of the Bimammatum Zone, will be shown in the Cz?stochowa Upland and the Wielu? Upland. You missed that field trip however.     Quote The Aalenian–Bajocian transition is a critical period in ammonite evolution; hence the Early Jurassic fauna are replaced by new ammonite families which become dominant throughout the Middle and Late Jurassic. http://tiny.cc/3Bdvw     Quote Based on a continuous succession of ammonite and calcareous nannofossil assemblages, the main purpose of this paper is the correlation between ammonite and calcareous nannofossil zone boundaries in two expanded sections from the Basque-Cantabrian area. http://users.unimi.it/rips/110/110N1.htm     Quote Yet among the tens of thousands of specimens dug up by collectors, no one has ever found a specimen that is part way between Hoplites dentatus and Euhoplites lautus or between lautus and Mortoniceras inflatum—or between any of the fourteen different ammonites.4 OK, I threw that last one in there from ICR as I suspect that's where you are coming from Daniel. http://www.icr.org/article/27/10/ Daniel, don't you think it's troublesome that you are taking the side of ICR in this "debate". Any anyway Daniel, every time a "missing link" is filled people like you simply claim "ah-ha, but now there are TWO extra missing links". I looked at your links but they don't seem to correspond to your quotes.  Either way, nothing you've quoted or linked to - in and of itself - falsifies Schindewolf.  You have to show that they've discovered transitionals between types.  Schindewolf himself talked about many "continuous successions of ammonites" within specific types. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,08:21    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,05:00)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44) As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike, but Schindewolf saw so many differences that he said he often could not envision what a transitional would look like between specific lineages. Thanks for your reply, Daniel, but it was not responsive to my request for examples of the ammonites that Schindewolf was discussing in his chapter. Regarding the quote above, where did Schindewolf say that?  How could that be true in every case where a transitional might be posited?  How could he find (or fail to find) a transitional if he didn't know what it might look like? I hope you will understand my confusion. Note my use of the word "often".  As to your other questions, I'll have to do some digging. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,08:23    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2008,08:19) I looked at your links but they don't seem to correspond to your quotes.  Either way, nothing you've quoted or linked to - in and of itself - falsifies Schindewolf.  You have to show that they've discovered transitionals between types.  Schindewolf himself talked about many "continuous successions of ammonites" within specific types. The quoted text is from the links given, no question there. Do you want screenshots with the text highlighted? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,10:44    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 12 2008,06:23)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2008,08:19) I looked at your links but they don't seem to correspond to your quotes.  Either way, nothing you've quoted or linked to - in and of itself - falsifies Schindewolf.  You have to show that they've discovered transitionals between types.  Schindewolf himself talked about many "continuous successions of ammonites" within specific types. The quoted text is from the links given, no question there. Do you want screenshots with the text highlighted? What I would like is for you to explain how these discoveries (in your opinion) falsify Schindewolf. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,10:52    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2008,10:44) What I would like is for you to explain how these discoveries (in your opinion) falsify Schindewolf. The point is really, how do you know they don't? And anyway what do you mean "falsify Schindewolf"? Anything in specific? Or are you reducing the mans life work to "there are no transitions between forms"?   Quote The detailed succession of ammonites will be shown in the Lower Oxfordian and lowermost part of the Middle Oxfordian up to the Plicatilis/Transversarium boundary;   Quote suc·ces·sion      /s?k?s???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhk-sesh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the coming of one person or thing after another in order, sequence, or in the course of events: many troubles in succession. 2. a number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence. 3. the right, act, or process, by which one person succeeds to the office, rank, estate, or the like, of another. 4. the order or line of those entitled to succeed one another. 5. the descent or transmission of a throne, dignity, estate, or the like. 6. Also called ecological succession. Ecology. the progressive replacement of one community by another until a climax community is established. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,14:15    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,18:44)     Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 11 2008,07:45)                           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 10 2008,19:27) According to Schindewolf, this pattern is repeated throughout the fossil record. OK,  keep in mind that these are my own interpretations of Schindewolf. So, when you say, "According to Schindewolf," that really means according to your interpretations of Schindewolf's opinions, and has nothing to do with the actual evidence. Do you not see more than a bit of dishonesty in your initial representation?    Quote Schindewolf held that:   1) IF Darwin's gradualism was true... Define "Darwin's gradualism" in detail. I smell more mendacity. Quote ...Notice how the CC lineage doesn't change much from the simple original body plan? No, I only notice a bunch of letters and no evidence. Do you not see how obviously you were lying when you claimed:   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:48) My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint. ...I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. You are afraid to look at the evidence for yourself. That's why you rely entirely on rhetoric. Quote As to your question of what a transitional ammonite might look like: To me (and you too apparently), they all look alike,... So YOU aren't even convinced by any evidence. I second Richard Simons's question: if you aren't convinced by evidence, why would you accept Schindewolf's opinion as Gospel? Quote This is why virtually every chart depicting the fossil record you'll ever see will have thick vertical lines (representing actual fossils found) and dotted horizontal and diagonal lines (representing projected descent) between them. And that's why new transitional finds resolve those dotted lines. Quote This is why also, such classifications are so hotly debated. But they get resolved by new data, something no one in the ID movement has the integrity to produce.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,15:58    Would Schindewolf have recognized a transitional fossil if he saw one? Apparently not:         Quote Even the initial joyous satisfaction that once greeted, for example, the discov­ery of the famous ancestral bird Archaeopteryx did not prove to be justified. Despite all its similarities to reptiles, Archaeopteryx is a true bird; the boundary between the reptile type and the bird type has not yet been bridged by a continu­ous, uninterrupted linking series. Basic Concepts, p 103. (Note the sarcasm: "initial joyous satisfaction."  Veddy scientific.) Some reptilian features of Archaeopteryx (From a post on IIDB): 1. cervical vertebrae with simple concave articulation points (birds have long, saddle-shaped ones) 2. unfused trunk vertebrae 3. gastralia (abdominal ribs) 4. no uncinate processes on the rib cage and no articulation with the sternum 5. a sacrum with just 6 vertebrae (birds have between 11 and 23) 6. mobile elbow, wrist and finger bones (they're fused in birds) 7. downward-orientated shoulder socket 8. a long bony tail 9. teeth 10. theropod-like skull fenestrae 11. a short, heavy, forwardly-inclined quadrate 12. a thin straight jugal bone (as in reptiles) 13. a preorbital bar 14. an occipital condyle and foramen magnum above the back end of the quadrate, like that of therapods (birds have theirs below the quadrate) -- IOW the neck attaches to the head at the rear of the skull, not underneath. 15. no bill 16. unfused metatarsals 17. claws on three of the fingers Blinded by ideology, was Otto Heinrich. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,17:27    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,15:58) Would Schindewolf have recognized a transitional fossil if he saw one? And, as pointed out before, are they necessary in all cases? We don't know enough about the genetics of ammonites to say for sure, but given what we have learned in the past couple of decades about gene regulation in the development of form in insects (flies, butterflies, etc.) and mammals, it is certainly possible to hypothesize a situation where a single mutation in a homeotic gene led to a beneficial or even neutral morphological change in one generation. Naturally it would take lots of generations for this new morphology to become common enough to be fossilized, but there would not necessarily be ANY transitional forms. Daniel, this is the reason that others have called you to task for your ignorant assumptions about hind-leg genes, or suggested that you read Endless Forms Most Beautiful, or even The Making of the Fittest. Schindewolf's assumptions about even the necessity of transitional forms might be in error, based on what has been discovered since he shuffled off this mortal coil. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2008,17:47    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2008,20:18) Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,20:13) But what about the evidence he omitted, and the mountains of evidence we've acquired since? JAM, can you--for once--cite a legitimate example of evidence that Schindewolf ignored or of modern evidence that falsifies his theory? Sure. Assuming that your characterization of his assumption of gradualism is valid, he's ignoring the evidence from my brutha Greg, for starters. As for modern evidence, why do you think I keep asking you about vertebrae?

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2008,06:31    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,15:58) Would Schindewolf have recognized a transitional fossil if he saw one? Apparently not:             Quote Even the initial joyous satisfaction that once greeted, for example, the discov­ery of the famous ancestral bird Archaeopteryx did not prove to be justified. Despite all its similarities to reptiles, Archaeopteryx is a true bird; the boundary between the reptile type and the bird type has not yet been bridged by a continu­ous, uninterrupted linking series. In a book on paleontology comprising over 400 pages, it is revealing that the sole reference to Archaeopteryx is that short paragraph. Two sentences that dismiss, without any analysis, one of the most important fossil finds in history. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Pages: (58) < ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard