Is evolution a fact?

[Rumraket]

I don't care what you want to call those whales.. They are not transistional I. Regards to direct ancestory and as such are debunked.

Not reven remotely. Your problem is you have been operating under a false understanding of what a transitional species is.

We need direct ties

No we don't.

not arbitrary ones to conclude with evidence that evolution is true.

They are not arbitrary just because they are probably not direct ancestors of ours.

I'm done with the whale garbage.. You accept it I don't

You seem to be unable to accept even the simplest things. All you're really showing is how strong the double standard with regards to evidence, you are operating under, really is. There is no ends to the demands you throw at the evidence for evolution, but you accept creationism on nothing at all.

... I'm busy working on your new baby tiktaalik. Now do you accept there are o.der tetrapods then tiktaalik? Q

I accept it, but it is irrelevant with regards to the transitional status of tiktaalik. To qualify as a transitional species a fossil does not have to be directly ancestral or sit smack in the middle of the two morphological classes it is transitioning.

You have been operating under a false understanding of what a transitional species is.

 

[AronRa]

Not that Bernie cares about anything that can be shown to be accurate, but there is a precise definition of transitional fossils which is used both by scientists and creationists:

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.
Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”
-Quoted from the Young Earth Creationist website, WasDarwinRight.com.

Of course Bernie will ignore this too, because it proves he's wrong again. So he'll just keeping making up his own definitions, as if he has that right.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil in that it shares characteristics of earlier and later species.

Just because an earlier fossil with similar features is found doesn't mean that Tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil - nor does it "prove" that the theory of evolution is wrong.

All it does show is that such a creature evolved earlier than thought - that's all.

To give another example, we humans migrated to Europe from Africa - the question was, "When?".

Over time, as more fossils and artefacts are found, the "when" has shifted to ever earlier times. Does the finding of earlier evidence for human migration to Europe negate the fact that humans migrated to Europe? No, it doesn't.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Computer is not my forte...

Finally......an actual fact!

This one?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Trying to post image but not working atm... Trying to bring in tiktaalik chart.... Can anybody bring one in? Computer is not my forte...

1) Right-click on image;
2) Choose "Copy link location";
3) In "Post a reply" screen, click on "Img" option above;
4) Hold down Ctrl key and tap V key - this will paste the image url within the Img brackets;
5) Post reply (with whatever text as normal)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Whats the difference between the two?

 

[DutchLiam84]

How do you get that from those 2 trees? Because they are EXACTLY the same.

 

[Rumraket]

I "agree" with this chart. Tiktaalik is a transitional species.

 

[Rumraket]

Again look at them both side by side... They are almost identical. The chart you provided says "four footed evolved here". But according to findings in Poland four footers evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik... Therefore the part of your chart that says "four footed evolved here" is demonstrated to be false because for footed evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik.

You are right, charts constructed subsequent to the discovery in poland have changed. That's what science does, accept evidence from the real world.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/09/casey-luskin-embarrasses-himse/

Once again, the Discovery Institute stumbles all over itself to crow victory over evolution, led by the inspiring figure of that squeaking incompetent, Casey Luskin. This time, what has them declaring the bankruptcy of evolution is the discovery of tetrapod trackways in Poland dating back 395 million years. I know, it’s peculiar; every time a scientist finds something new and exciting about our evolutionary history, the bozos at the DI rush in to announce that it means the demise of Darwinism. Luskin has become the Baghdad Bob of creationism.

The grounds for this announcement is the bizarre idea that somehow, older footprints invalidate the status of Tiktaalik as a transitional form, making all the excitement about that fossil erroneous. As we’ve come to expect, though, all it really tells us is that Casey Luskin didn’t comprehend the original announcement about Tiktaalik, and still doesn’t understand what was discovered in Poland.

The fossil tetrapod footprints indicate Tiktaalik came over 10 million years after the existence of the first known true tetrapod. Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish, and these footprints make it very difficult to presently argue that Tiktaalik is a transitional link between fish and tetrapods. It’s not a “snapshot of fish evolving into land animals,” because if this transition ever took place it seems to have occurred millions of years before Tiktaalik.

Errm, no. Shubin and Daeschler are smart guys who understand what fossils tell us, and they never, ever argued that Tiktaalik‘s status as a transitional form depended on slotting it in precisely in a specific chronological time period as a ‘link’ between two stages in the evolution of a lineage. A fossil is representative of a range of individuals that existed over a window of time; a window that might be quite wide. They would never express the kind of simplistic, naive view of the relationship of a fossil that the DI clowns seem to have. For instance, here’s a picture of the relationship between various fossils, as published in Nature when Tiktaalik was announced.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Again look at them both side by side... They are almost identical. The chart you provided says "four footed evolved here". But according to findings in Poland four footers evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik... Therefore the part of your chart that says "four footed evolved here" is demonstrated to be false because for footed evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik.

Yeah so? Then where do you suggest to put "four footed evolved here"? How would you change the tree?

And are you an old earth creationist?

 

[DutchLiam84]

Don't tell me what I agree with or not. But whatever dude...go ahead, try to make your point.

 

[Rumraket]

You see the problem don't you rum Racket?

Not at all. What is the problem?

 

[Isotelus]

The whales are not transitional... They are sister groups.. Not direct ancestors. Like seriously we just went over this... But I'm going to show you why tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil.

Yes we went over this, and you're the one still not getting it. The whales ARE transitional! I and everyone else has explicitly laid out for you what a transitional fossil is. Just because Dorudon and Basilosaurus are sister taxa doesn't mean they aren't transitional fossils! For the tenth time, the correct definition of a transitional fossil holds that it has a mix of primitive and advanced traits, and that's it. There is no assumption being made where one fossil transitions into the next, and so on. Rumraket pointed this out above and I'll reiterate because apparently it needs to be said again. The fossils are, once again, representatives of how the traits changed over time. They're single snapshots within an entire album. A transitional fossil itself also has nothing to do with the evolution of a particular trait, like four legs for walking:

a particular specimen such as Tiktaalik, is not considered to have been in the process of evolving itself, considering that evolution occurs at the population level, and not directly on individuals. Instead, the lineage containing Tiktaalik may show evolution, as it represents a collection of breeding populations progressing over a given length of time.

Also, the fact that you believe a set of older footprints invalidate Tiktaalik's position as a transitional fossil shows you still regard evolution as a linear process, which it is clearly not, as the whale chart showed and as many have said here. They don't diminish the fact that Tiktaalik has a particular set of morphological traits that place it between more primitive Sarcopterygian fish and more advanced Tetrapods. Tiktaalik completely fulfills the definition of a transitional fossil; sans direct ancestry. Also, because lineages branch, members of those groups can coexist in space and time and change further while following distinct paths; just like Dorudon and Basilosaurus did, even though Dorudon is more primitive morphologically speaking than Basilosaurus. In much the same way, Tiktaalik is part of a primitive lineage that evidently persisted after a separate lineage evolved four legs. Coeval species isn't something we're just assuming either; it's completely evident both in the fossil record and today. There are tons of very primitive organisms living concurrently with much more advanced ones.

Edit: Wanted to add as well. Rumraket said we don't need direct ancestry to figure out how animal groups are related. That is absolutely correct. Because we can't assess direct ancestry from the fossil record (often we can't get that from modern animals either! DNA sequencing doesn't necessarily make this any easier), transitional fossils are basically all we have. I'll reiterate. We use transitional fossils in lieu of the direct ancestor. All we have is a bunch of fossil species and their individual traits, and that's all it took to make that whale chart. Direct ancestry.Is.Not.Needed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Bernhard[/url].visscher"]Question what is evidence for "above the species level"

Answer: Ok refer to dragon glas chart for example... Prove that a dorudon was a direct ancestor of a basilosaurus. That would be evidence above the species level.

First off, that is not how those charts work; they do not show ancestral relationships (I see this was already explained to you far better than I could do it justice). Second, this seems to be stemming from the straw man of evolution you are holding in your head. No one is arguing for that, so please stop referring to it.

Now, since you did not answer my question, I will ask it again in a way I hope makes more sense. You already agreed speciation happens, that is having species A, and it gives rise to species B. Now, what I am asking is what do you mean by above species level? If species B gives rise to species C, would that be above. Until you answer what exactly you mean by "above species”, I will not be able to give you what you are asking for.

Question simple to complex

Answer: the fossil record indicates and refers to simple life forms on bottom... Complex life forms on top. That is the alleged evolution from simple to complex... Refer to fossil record.

Again, you must be referring to the straw man of evolution that only exists in your head. No one is arguing for that. Now stating the fossil record indicates simple at the bottom and complex on top appears to be ignorance on your part and not a claim made by evolutionary scientists. Let us refer to the fossil record and pick out some early animals such as Hydrocephalus, Peytoia, and Promissum. Now how are they "simple" compared to tigers, spiders, and hagfish? Do you mean single cellular life? Again, how do you show that single cellular life is simple compared to multicellular life? What metric is allowing you to make these judgments? You see how without a biologically meaningful definition for "simple" and "complex" you have no argument. You are making this argument, not evolutionary scientists. Biologically speaking, terms like "simple" and "complex" are value judgments that are arbitrary and meaningless. Thus, we have another failed answer by you.

The kinds thing your referring to is not a question... I skip

Oh, here let me make it into a question you will understand. "... based on your definition of kinds you accept that humans and all other great apes are the same kind." Agree, why or why not? I did not think that really had to be spelled out, since your own argument undermines the main reason you are arguing so hard against “evolution” (i.e. humans being related to other animals). However, I guess it must be spelled out when dealing with someone so deceived by the bible, believing whales are fish, and is going out of their way to act obtuse.

Question: formula for calculating? Claim to know how much? How exactly did I arrive at number?

I don't claim to know or to have a formula for calculating. I'm simply referring to the fossil record that claims small life forms are on bottom of fossil record therefore simple. So I didn't arrive at any number.. I'm simply referring to the evolutionary fossil record. Which claims life forms on bottom are considered simple.

Once again, you refer to the straw man of evolution you are holding in your head. No one is arguing for that. Now, you are making the claim that there are "simple" and "complex" life forms, not evolutionary scientists. As I said earlier, why do you think Hydrocephalus, Peytoia, and Promissum are simple and tigers, spiders, and hagfish are not? Thus, for a third time you failed to answer my question. However, this question did serve its purpose, so thank you Rando for asking it. Moreover, until "information" is properly defined and Bernhard.visscher gives us his metric for measuring "simple" and "complex", this question will remain unanswered.

Now, one wonders if Bernhard.visscher is starting to get the picture that no one is arguing for the straw man of evolution that exists in his head and everyone is talking about evolution that Bernhard.visscher already said he accepts and agrees happens? One also wonders if Bernhard.visscher is starting to understand that he first needs an education before any of the evidence will make sense. One can beat a creationist over the head (both literally and figuratively) with the transitional fossils we have, but without the background knowledge needed to make sense of them all, the creationist is able to dismiss it all without a thought, as Bernhard.visscher has demonstrated several times.

Computer is not my forte...

Judging from your performance thus far, neither is biology.

Why is mr Ra posting as if he has brought evidence for evolution? He hasn't and the sooner more people realize the less awkward telling him will be.

:facepalm:

AronRa[/url]"]In order to prove evolution to you, you first have to understand what it is. You failed step one. After that, step two would have been to get you to name the sort of facts you would accept as being indicative of or concordant with that. Once you've done that, then we can move on to step three, where I show you exactly what you asked to see.

The only awkward thing is that you did not honor your agreement. If you had, you would have seen AronRa's evidence.

Again look at them both side by side... They are almost identical. The chart you provided says "four footed evolved here". But according to findings in Poland four footers evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik... Therefore the part of your chart that says "four footed evolved here" is demonstrated to be false because for footed evolved 18 million years before tiktaalik.

So where exactly does DutchLiam84’s chart give a time of divergence? Oh, that is right, it does not. That is not how phylogenetic trees work. Thus, DutchLiam84’s chart is correct, “four legs evolved here” is correctly plotted on the tree. See how it happens after the split from Tiktaalik but before amphibians? See how there is no time axes on that tree? See how that chart has to be factoring in character counts on the skeleton since they are using a fossil specimen? You see, if you stopped stubbornly referring to the straw man of evolution you are holding in your head and started listening to what people are trying to teach you this might start to make sense. Go back and have a read of “Misconception Monday: Do You Talk Tree? Part 1, 2, 3, and 4”, which I pointed out earlier, because I feel it will clear up a lot of confusion you are having with phylogenetics.

 

[Dustnite]

 

[Dustnite]

How sane people see the tree of life:

How Bernie sees the tree of life:

 

[Bango Skank]

Sorry, i don't know much about evolution, but would this be a good example of transition?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

 

[Rumraket]

Makes sense magic + imagination = evolution tree of life. A shit ton of imagination.

This one is only worthy of a laugh, because you are the one who believes life originated through actual divine magic. That a snake could talk, that a woman was magically created from a rib(what was the rib needed for in the first place? It's magic!) and that an apple from a magical tree can give you forbidden knowledge.

You should take a moment to reflect on what you believe before you bring accusations of belief in magic based on imagination. You are literally guilty of what you accuse you of.

 

[AronRa]

This thread reminded me of an important point that needed to be added to my recent blog post about perquisite rules for debate challanges.

"I came up with this rule that I wouldn’t debate anyone who nominates his or her self. I’ll only do it if some collection of people nominates someone else to represent them, someone who will debate me on their behalf. That way, if I beat that person, I’m effectively beating everyone that person represents. That is also the only way to force accountability, something creationists consistently lack, and which is the biggest hurdle when debating them. Disingenuous willfully obtuse or childish behavior may work for an individual, but not so much when representing a group of other people; because some of their own following are likely to call them out for that."

 

[Bango Skank]

Bango: your question is this a good example.... Refer to skinks national geographic article... Of a transistional?

No it is not.

Why not?