Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talkorigions, under the heading "Punctuated Equilibrium" states:
"The fossil record is incomplete.
This incompleteness has many contributing factors.
Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved.
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. Yes, many fossils become disarticulated. Many become fragmentary. Many are not preserved at all. Despite all that, many fully articulated and useful fossils HAVE BEEN FOUND.
And yet - assume is just what you do.
. Talkorigions, under the heading "Punctuated Equilibrium" states:
"The fossil record is incomplete.
This incompleteness has many contributing factors.
Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved.
.
(There goes your movie again: remember what I did with it?
Sanspeur wrote:
“Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.”
.
My response:
“OK - let’s look at that motion picture:
“An article published in NationalGeographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Consider the implications of that illustration.
.
Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?
.
How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that species change very little over time.
.
Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.” (Was Life Created? pp. 25-26)
.
TALKORIGINS:
Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification.
The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.
Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent."
.
This information builds no confidence in the fossil record because of the massive guesswork involved, SO IT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Again, I don't know whether you are searching this stuff out yourself, but I have to say that it is is rather strongly pointing to admitted gaps in the record (and this is only dealing with why some parts of animals or kinds of animals are likely to be fossilised) and trying to argue that this somehow means that the whole means nothing.
It would be nice to have examples of every kind of animal including a handy transitional preserved each thousand year eyeblink when a major adaptation became apparent, but we can't expect to be so lucky. What we can do is be thankful for the thousand of specimens showing the overall development through millions of years of lifeforms, including many transitional forms, the recent remarkable evidence for feathered and flying dinosaurs being particularly impressive.
Punctured Equilibrium is particularly open to misrepresentation.
The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.
PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.
PE is not some sort of explanation of why there is no evidence, but an explanation of what we see IN the evidence.
I noted that Gees 'Cladism' came in for some astonishing mangling on some evolution - skeptic sites with Henry VIII giving birth to dogs and cats. Can a case only be made against evolution by misrepresentation of it? And when are we going to see some sound evidence - any sound evidence - for Creation?
I agree. It is easy to overdraw the handily - mined quotes, or perhaps nit -pick in the hope of discrediting the evidence for evolution.
There IS no evidence for evolution! There was no "quote mining." I got the information directly from here:Punctuated Equilibria
and was not quoting the
Quote:
Let's compare it with archaeology where on any dig 99% of the material has of course gone missing. That does not in any way invalidate the conclusions drawn from what does remain.
That is nonsense! The material in a "dig" does not vanish and you should know that. If you are working the "dig," you should know where the material went.
Quote:
We may have an occupation layer with a lot of broken pottery, meat bones, a few coins and above a floor level showing no occupation, burned wood and weathering. There may not be a note there explaining that the family have moved out, but the conclusion is valid that this is what happened.
That conclusion could be wrong! They may have DIED out or led off into exile and their descendants may very well be alive somewhere, like the coelacanth, sharing a different set of social values. See what I mean? You just made Gee's point:
" The first known fossil is thus no reliable guide to the date or the structure of the first member of its group. Nor, Gee insists, does the record tell us anything about the adaptations of the species we study."
Quote:
The fossil record shows that there were changes within species as time went on (the triceratopids is a good example) and also many long periods when stable conditions meant that a species could flourish with little or no change. The idea that evolution is obliged to change species continually and at a regular rate is a common and false idea.
You really know nothing about the length of time nor the type of changes you think took place. The whole thing is a guessing game!
It certainly does not! You're just trying to justify Gould's idea about "punctuated equilibrium."
Quote:
The fact that the information about Jesus can only cover a few hours of his ministry would be regarded as irrelevant since the odd bits of information supposedly add up to a coherent narrative (in fact they don't and if the fossil evidence was so contradictory I would wouldn't believe that either)
This is nonsense! Information is immaterial and cannot rightly be compared to fossils.
Quote:
Amusingly this missing information is used to try to help theist apologetics. If any contradictions or discrepancies are pointed up then it it is pointed out that 'There were many other things that Jesus did' and the absent evidence is held to explain everything if only we knew it.
But a quite different line is taken with evolution evidence. Though there are no serious problems or discrepancies, the sheer fact that there are many other things that evolution did which I suppose would fill hundreds of books, is held up by our anti - evolutionists as somehow discrediting the evidence.
It is special pleading and a false argument in itself. While ignorance of the subject is some excuse, it is not when it is explained and the explanation is rejected. That becomes intellectual dishonesty.
All of your "explanations" amount to trickery! There's the dishonesty!
“. . .because the tyrant must reach his end, and the bragger must come to his finish, and all those keeping alert to do harm must be cut off, those bringing a man into sin by [his] word, and those who lay bait even for the one reproving in the gate, and those who push aside the righteous one with empty arguments.” (Isaiah 29:20-21)
"Discrediting the evidence?" What evidence?
NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
"In an effort to explain how living things evolved, modern-day sociobiologists rely on Neo-Darwinism, which is a later version of Charles Darwin’s theory of slow, adaptive evolution. But a newer, rival theory—called “punctuated equilibrium” by Stephen Gould and others—holds that the production of new animal species occurred in comparatively sudden jumps, or “jerks.”
.
Punctuationists maintain that fossil evidence is in their favor. Why? Because intermediate animal forms are “not detectable in the fossil record,” observes Dr. John Turner in an issue of NewScientist. But the main difference between these two camps is that punctuationists claim that
(1) the “jerks” were generated, not by some form of Neo-Darwinian adaption, but by some process possibly still unknown and
(2) the “jerks,” according to Turner, “always accompany the branching of the evolutionary tree.”
“There is no good evidence for [these ideas],” concludes Dr. Turner. “I am tempted to say no evidence at all. Of the essential jerk theory, one can say as Gould did of sociobiology, that it brings no new insights, and can cite on its behalf not a single unambiguous fact.”
But since punctuated equilibrium is so popular among rival evolutionists, this also amounts to an unintended admission of how little, if any, evidence there is for the traditional evolutionary belief. Since neither theory can explain the gaps in the fossil record, both lack credibility.
.
However, there is a fully satisfying explanation for fossil gaps, one that also agrees with modern genetics. It is found in the Bible’s statements that animals produce “according to their kinds” and that man is an independent creation of God.—Genesis 1:24; 2:7." (WT 84 7/15 p. 21)
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-11-2012 at 09:08 AM..
Here. You missed (or purposefully omitted...) this part.
6. Common errors in discussion of PE. [Punctuated Equilibrium]
Many errors can be found in discussion of the concept of PE. G&E 1977 point out several of these.
PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977.
This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.
PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.
PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept.
A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.
Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations.
PE is not a saltational theory of evolution. The emphasis upon applying consequences of peripatric speciation to paleontology shows this critique to be unfounded. PE is no more saltational than peripatric speciation is in study of modern organisms."
(For those who are not familiar with the saltational theory mentioned above, here's a summary. Gosh, the Inernet makes this so easy duhn-it, and yet, some still blindly stagger on in total denial... Like the dinos who just "didn't see it coming", these types of died-in-the-bible Genesis supporters will also become extinct, since they cannot adapt. Intellectually in this case...)
Now then: Richard Lenski's now famous 2008 proof of evolution. He also noted what I'd labelled Evolutionary Vectoring, which simply enough means that some mutated alleles can sit un-utilized because...
1) there is no obvious & present use for their particular adaptation so it simply lays dormant, trying to express itself but to no particular advantage, (sometimes fading out completely, but not always... and like some off what human geneticists had called "junk DNA" but no more..) and then...
2) some key, possibly singular, facilitating mutation occurs which DOES allow the newfound use & incorporation of several of those dormant mutations, by either the new utility of some item in the organism's ecosystem or niche, or...
3) via the ability of those once-passive mutations to NOW help out the new mutation's capability. They may only slightly help, or may also provide a major new avenue. Possibly allowing yet another species to pop up!
Hence, when Richard Lenski's scrupulous DNA evidence pointed out a new ability at about Generation 22,000 (out of his insightfully maintained collection of 22 years and 32,000 generations, which all came to life with the advent of inarguable DNA lineage trfacking & mapping, which you won't read or discuss because, heck, it makes a total fool's mockery of your argument...) , it also displayed several other somewhat surprising abilities.
A major jump forward, as it were. Just the thing you disallow, rather ignorantly (from a geneticist's point of view, which you most surely are not capable of expressing).
Your steadfast denial of the process of adaptive genetic radiation and diffusion of genetically based capabilities over time is rather validating of your denial of the facts.
NOTE: to avoid an overly long post here, next, I'll also provide a link Evolutionary disbelievers really should read.
What Genesis should have shown us. But then, what modern science does.
That durned TalkOrigins site, huh? Providing all this unmistakable, factual and logical evidence, which gets regularly quote-mined to selectively distort the facts it presents.
As in: T. Pagano, who claims that: The fossil record is in complete accord with the creationist model ...
Well, read this rebuttal, oh Genesis-loving lads & ladies, in it's short entirety:
"Here's what the fossil record should look like if Biblical creationism were true.
1) In the very lowest strata we should see no fossils at all. This is because, according to the Bible, all life originally existed in the Garden of Eden and nothing died there.
2) In the next levels of strata, we should see a fairly constant rate of fossils or a gradually growing rate of fossils. This would reflect the time after the Fall as life progressed all over the Earth.
3) These strata should have fossils of all types of organisms, both bacteria and larger more complex organisms because all of them coexisted.
4) We should see more mobile species such as horses at the bottom of the fossil record throughout most of the world because those species would be able to migrate to places far away from the Garden of Eden more quickly than less mobile species.
5) In fact we should be able to use this layer of strata to help discover the location of the Garden of Eden. The closer that any particular rocks are to the original location of the Garden of Eden, the earlier fossils should appear. (It should take species longer to get far away from the Garden and die than it should be for species to die close to the Garden.)
6) At some point as we move up through the strata we should see a sudden massive intrusion of fossils. This would represent the 40 days and 40 nights of the flood.
7) This layer should also include archaeological artifacts such as tools because humans existed and would not have escaped with their tools. This should be present because of the large number of organisms (nearly every living creature on Earth) that died suddenly under conditions ideal for fossilization. (A flood is the very best environment for preserving fossils.)
8) We should be able to show that all of these fossils are in the same strata all over the world.
10) Immediately above this sudden intrusion of fossils, we should see a thin layer of marine fossils. This would represent the year when, according to the Bible, the Earth was covered with water. This layer of fossils should be present everywhere since the flood was global in nature.
11) As we move up beyond this point in the strata, we should see a fossil gap; the size of the gap should vary depending on the geographical distance that a particular rock formation is from Mount Ararat - the final resting place of the Ark according to the Bible.
12) As was the case immediately after the Fall, it would take some time for slow moving organisms to get very far away from where the Ark came to rest.
13) This pattern should exist all over the World."
In fact, of course, none of this evidence exists anywhere on Earth.
Creationism --> totally falsified by the existing and documented fossil record.
The denialist's perspective on Genesis being only about 5 to 10k years ago also totally excludes the newest artifact dating techniques, validated many times over in double-blind tests of artifacts of known origin and age, when these latest co-supportive methods absolutelyconfirm the ages of knowns, and then go on to provide highly accurate ages for unknowns.
As they say, read it and weep. Or go into further states of false delusion and denial. Your choice.
And here I thought that materialists didn't believe in sin.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aha! The "dumb gene" survives!
What Genesis should have shown us. But then, what modern science does.
