Darwin's Illusion

[Astrophile]

By the way, do you know what organic trace means?

The definition that I gave you from the Penguin Dictionary of Geology explains what is meant by the term "organic trace". So far as I understand it, it includes bones, shells and eggs of animals; the wood, leaves, roots, pollen, seeds, etc. of plants; any impression left in sediment by a living organism after it has decayed; excrement (coprolites); tracks (e.g. footprints) and trails, and borings or burrows in sedimentary rocks.

 

[Audie]

Looks like you didn't even bother to read what I said,


This is simply untrue - think cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics. However:

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The people who try to give science lessons!

 

[Audie]

Yeah so fossils aren't what many might think they are.

Many many ( all ) creationists are confused.
Very.

 

[YoursTrue]

The definition that I gave you from the Penguin Dictionary of Geology explains what is meant by the term "organic trace". So far as I understand it, it includes bones, shells and eggs of animals; the wood, leaves, roots, pollen, seeds, etc. of plants; any impression left in sediment by a living organism after it has decayed; excrement (coprolites); tracks (e.g. footprints) and trails, and borings or burrows in sedimentary rocks.

ok, thanks, but still don't understand because aren't there impressions in rocks or soil (sediment?) perhaps like feathers and skeletal remains? So if that is so, are the impressions considered organic traces?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok, thanks, but still don't understand because aren't there impressions in rocks or soil (sediment?) perhaps like feathers and skeletal remains? So if that is so, are the impressions considered organic traces?

Yes. They would be. They are signs of organic life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. They would be. They are signs of organic life.

An organic trace of a once-living organism would be a trace or small particle of the original substance. Such as if someone wrote something in chalk on a blackboard but not all was erased, thus a trace of the chalk was left behind because a small bit of the white stuff was not completely erased. But an impression in clay of a piece of chalk would not necessarily have anything more than an impression, or outline of the piece of chalk. Not necessarily have the chalky material in the impression.
When you say signs of organic life, if I understand it correctly, that would be like an impression of a feather or a bone, not necessarily anything containing organic material, but rather an impression perhaps, is that correct?

 

[Audie]

An organic trace of a once-living organism would be a trace or small particle of the original substance. Such as if someone wrote something in chalk on a blackboard but not all was erased, thus a trace of the chalk was left behind because a small bit of the white stuff was not completely erased. But an impression in clay of a piece of chalk would not necessarily have anything more than an impression, or outline of the piece of chalk. Not necessarily have the chalky material in the impression.
When you say signs of organic life, if I understand it correctly, that would be like an impression of a feather or a bone, not necessarily anything containing organic material, but rather an impression perhaps, is that correct?

Any compound containing carbon is organic.

 

[Muffled]

No, evolution is happening now. That is why you need a new flu shot every year. The virus mutates and evolves. Are you the same as your parents? That is evolution on the dropping of a pencil to your desk scale.

Why do you think that evolution is not happening today?

So viruses ae evolving into viruses? And I am human like my parents? My dad had black hair my mother blonde but my hair was light brown. I don't believe it evolved it just is a throw back to a previous ancestor.

 

[Muffled]

Funny, you know. Have you ever heard of the snakehead fish? It breathes underwater through its gills, like other fish. But when it wants to wander out of the water, it can take a big gulp of air and breathe it through a special chamber next to its gills. Sort of like a lung, really. And it can do this not for minutes or hours, but for up to 4 days!

Now that is real evidence that a fish has evolved to be able to survive on land for an extended period of time. It is not conjecture at all.

Amphibious fish are fish that are able to leave water for extended periods of time. There are about 11 distantly related genera of fish are considered amphibious, that can stay out of water for extended periods of time. These fish use a range of terrestrial locomotory modes, such as lateral undulation, tripod-like walking (using paired fins and tail), and jumping. Many of these locomotory modes incorporate multiple combinations of pectoral-, pelvic-, and tail-fin movement. (All of which you dismissively refer to as “flopping about.”)

Quite a few ancient fish had lung-like organs, and there are a few that still do, such as the lungfish and bichir. In most recent fish species, though, these organs evolved into the swim bladders, which help control buoyancy. Having no lung-like organs, modern amphibious fish and many fish in oxygen-poor water use other methods, such as their gills or their skin to breathe air

Lungfish (Dipnoi): Six species have limb-like fins, and can breathe air. Some are obligate air breathers, meaning they will drown if not given access to breathe air. All but one species bury in the mud when the body of water they live in dries up, surviving up to two years until water returns.

Bichir (Polypteridae): These 12 species are the only ray-finned fish to retain lungs. They are facultative air breathers, requiring access to surface air to breathe in poorly oxygenated water.

Rockskippers: These blennies are found on islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. They come onto land to catch prey and escape aquatic predators, often for 20 minutes or more. Leaping blennies (Alticus arnoldorum) are able to jump over land using their tails. On Rarotonga, one species has evolved to become largely terrestrial.

Woolly sculpin (Clinocottus analis): Found in tide pools along the Pacific Coast, these sculpins leave water if the oxygen levels get low, and they can breathe air.

Mudskippers (Oxudercinae): This subfamily of gobies is probably the most land-adapted of fish. Mudskippers are found in mangrove swamps in Africa and the Indo-Pacific; they frequently come onto land, and can survive in air for up to 3-1/2 days. Mudskippers breathe through their skin and through the lining of the mouth (the mucosa) and throat (the pharynx). This requires the mudskipper to be wet, limiting them to humid habitats. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous breathing. They propel themselves over land on their sturdy fore fins. Some of them are also able to climb trees and skip atop the surface of the water.

Mangrove killifish (Mangrove rivulus): It can survive for about two months on land, where it breathes through its skin.

Eels: Some eels, such as the European eel and the American eel, can live for an extended time out of water and can also crawl on land if the soil is moist. The moray Echidna catenata sometimes leaves the water to forage.

Swamp eels, which are not true eels, can absorb oxygen through their highly vascularized mouths and pharynges, and in some cases (e.g., Monopterus rongsaw) through their skin.

Airbreathing catfish (Clariidae): Amphibious species of this family may venture onto land in wet weather, such as the eel catfish (Channallabes apus), which lives in swamps in Africa, and is known to hunt beetles on land.

There are more, but why bother, since you’ve already made up your mind.

BUT! My real point is this: with all this evidence before you, you dismiss it as mere conjecture. And yet, with the absolute absence of evidence for your religious beliefs, you have no doubt whatever about their veracity. This shows me that thinking, logic, science and empirical knowledge have nothing whatever to do with how you form your opinions.

I believe it does not prove evolution; it simply proves that God likes variety.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe it does not prove evolution; it simply proves that God likes variety.

See how easy it is? All you need is to invent a brand new attribute for God, and voila -- all the magic remains!

You are welcome to your beliefs. I'll take education and science.

 

[cladking]

-- all the magic remains!

The real magic is how species can evolve while every single individual is the same species as its parents.

Now that's magical.

 

[ratiocinator]

The real magic is how species can evolve while every single individual is the same species as its parents.

Now that's magical.

How does a baby become an old person when every morning they are pretty much the same as they were the night before?

Is that magical too?

 

[cladking]

How does a baby become an old person when every morning they are pretty much the same as they were the night before?

Is that magical too?

I'm not the one who believes in magic. That would be believers in Evolution.

If an individual survives babyhood he becomes a toddler and then a child etc etc.

Just as you can't really define every difference that keeps you from stepping in the same river twice you can't define every difference between every baby and toddler.

Reality is highly complex. It is thinking, language, and Darwin that are simplistic.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not the one who believes in magic. That would be believers in Evolution.

Evolution is science, not magic.

If an individual survives babyhood he becomes a toddler and then a child etc etc.

The point seems to have sailed majestically over your head.

Tiny, all but unnoticeable, changes from day to day, over a lifetime, can add up to the huge differences between a newborn and an old person. Likewise, tiny changes from generation to generation can add up to arbitrarily large changes over long enough time-scales in evolution.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is science, not magic.

I've heard the same thing said about reading tea leaves. All those facilitators with Ouija Boards communicating with the profoundly autistic were doing "science" too.

To be real science it must be founded in experiment and have clearly defined terms and axioms.

It can't be founded in reading fossils any more than in reading tea leaves.

The point seems to have sailed majestically over your head.

Tiny, all but unnoticeable, changes from day to day, over a lifetime, can add up to the huge differences between a newborn and an old person. Likewise, tiny changes from generation to generation can add up to arbitrarily large changes over long enough time-scales in evolution.

And you missed my point. In order for a baby to grow old it must grow old. In order for species to change they must change.

 

[ratiocinator]

To be real science it must be founded in experiment...

This is just nonsense. There are plenty of sciences that have to rely on observation (cosmology, for example) and, even if it wasn't utter nonsense, experiments are part of the evidence for evolution.

Experimental evolution - Latest research and news | Nature

www.nature.com

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It can't be founded in reading fossils any more than in reading tea leaves.

This is getting a bit silly now. Fossils are part of the evidence, and it is evidence, unlike tea leaves. I find you hard to take seriously when you post things like this.

And you missed my point. In order for a baby to grow old it must grow old. In order for species to change they must change.

And they do.

You do realise that species are a way that humans use to label different organisms, don't you? If we had an example of every single organism from evolutionary history, dividing them into species would be impossible (or obviously arbitrary).

No one generation is going to flick some switch and become a different species from the previous one. We can see the process spread over geographical area, rather than time, in ring species:

Ring species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

So viruses ae evolving into viruses? And I am human like my parents? My dad had black hair my mother blonde but my hair was light brown. I don't believe it evolved it just is a throw back to a previous ancestor.

"Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is not "change of kind" in evolution. You are still a human. Just like your parents. But you, your parents, in fact all of your ancestors going back for millions of years are apes. There was never a change from ape to man. People are apes. Just as people are mammals. Oddly enough creationists can understand the fact that people are mammals. It is pretty hard to argue against boobs. But for some strange reason they had to admit that they are apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The real magic is how species can evolve while every single individual is the same species as its parents.

Now that's magical.

"Species" is just a temporary name for a particular clade of organisms during a specific period of their existence. It is now recognized not to be a formal term. No magic needed.

 

[cladking]

This is getting a bit silly now. Fossils are part of the evidence, and it is evidence, unlike tea leaves. I find you hard to take seriously when you post things like this.

I and many trained peers in biology interpret the fossil record differently than you do. We believe it shows that species change. Some believe it shows sudden changes in species and I believe virtually all change in species occurs at bottlenecks and result from consciousness rathe than fitness.
All evidence is subject to interpretation so can not underlie theory. All theory must be founded in experiment which ironically must also undergo some (much more limited) interpretation. This is simply the nature of science and its metaphysics.

No one generation is going to flick some switch and become a different species from the previous one

In order for species to change they must change.

Additionally I believe the switch you're looking for is in the genes and is operated by both mutation and through speciation events that occur at bottlenecks. Very few if any species change in the manner described by Darwin.

 

[ratiocinator]

Some believe it shows sudden changes in species and I believe virtually all change in species occurs at bottlenecks and result from consciousness rathe than fitness.

Yes, I'm aware of your bizarre beliefs. The problem is that you have no evidence and what you say doesn't even make sense.

All evidence is subject to interpretation so can not underlie theory. All theory must be founded in experiment which ironically must also undergo some (much more limited) interpretation.

Simply false. I also note that you completely ignored my links to experiments. Ho hum.

In order for species to change they must change.

But not in one jump. I note that you also ignored the link to ring species that demonstrate all the stages required.