New 'on-line museum' challenges evolution

[Revoltingest]

David M: I see a problem with your argument. Let's presume that you've much knowledge of biology, evolution, & fossils. Where I think you er
is in your understanding of all this information. It seems that you're making an argument against evolution based upon gaps in the fossil record.
But this is not that useful, since fossil formation is a rare event compared to the volume of life throughout history. But even so, some records
are more complete than others, as Painted Wolf said, ".... there are a few direct ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record. Mostly
with micro-invertebrates. Forams and Trilobites especially.". These examples verify the phenomenon of evolution, without having to address all
species.

 

[David M]

No, I don't think so. Fossils are way too rare to allow for that in the general case.

In other words you had no idea what I was saying when you jumped in and said I had a grave misunderstanding of the basics of ToE.

This was what started the argument when talking about species in the fossil record.

That statement is entirely correct, fossils can only suggest that there is a relationship but not state an ancestor/decendant relationship except in a very few cases where we have exceptionaly good detail in the fossil record (even if its almost a certainty). Genetics can do this however, but we have no DNA for almost all fossilised species.

Which you now agree with?

Maybe you should have read my posts where I made it clear that I was not arguing that we could not define any relationship but that we could not define specific ancestor/descendant relationships between species in most cases even though we can say its almost certain.

 

[David M]

David M: I see a problem with your argument. Let's presume that you've much knowledge of biology, evolution, & fossils. Where I think you er
is in your understanding of all this information. It seems that you're making an argument against evolution based upon gaps in the fossil record.

Where am I making an argument against evolution?

I am making an argument against people saying that the fossil record shows things that it does not. It is extremely rare for us to have fine enough detail to establish that there is an ancestor/descendant relationship between a pair of species even when we are confident that this is probably the case. What we find establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there is A relationship, in this case common descent.

It also allows us to construct clades based on morphology with high degrees of confidence as to their accuracy, What it rarely allows us to do is state that Species A is an ancestor of Species B, which is not the same as saying (for example) that tetrapods are ultimately ancestors of hominids.

But this is not that useful, since fossil formation is a rare event compared to the volume of life throughout history. But even so, some records are more complete than others, as Painted Wolf said, ".... there are a few direct ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record. Mostly with micro-invertebrates. Forams and Trilobites especially.". These examples verify the phenomenon of evolution, without having to address all species.

Which pretty much supports what I have been saying all along. Talk Origins was correct in saying that we cannot establish ancestor/descendant relationships between extinct species (in an overwhelming majority of cases), but that does not mean that we cannot establish that there are relationships between extinct species and that common descent is valid (which is what MoF was wrongly implying).

If we make mistakes in our arguments it weakens our case just as much as it weakens the arguments of creationists when they make mistakes (of couse they tend to make mistakes in almost every argument but that is beside the point).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*sigh*

 

[Revoltingest]

Where am I making an argument against evolution?

That is only my impression. If I'm wrong, then please tell me. (I can take it.)

I am making an argument against people saying that the fossil record shows things that it does not. It is extremely rare for us to have fine enough detail to establish that there is an ancestor/descendant relationship between any given pair of species. What we find establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there is A relationship, in this case common descent.

I agree that there is room for doubt about lineage where the fossil record is scant.

Which pretty much supports what I have been saying all along. Talk Origins was correct in saying that we cannot establish ancestor/descendant relationships between extinct species (in an overwhelming majority of cases), but that does not mean that we cannot establish that there are relationships between extinct species and that common descent is valid (which is what MoF was wrongly implying).

There certainly is much work ahead in this field, & many relationships will likely never be known.

 

[David M]

*sigh*

*deep sigh*

 

[Revoltingest]

*deep sigh*

<deepest sigh>

What? I wanted to join in on the sighing too.

 

[David M]

That is only my impression. If I'm wrong, then please tell me. (I can take it.)

You are wrong.

If ToE was judged by anything less than the exacting standards of science it would be considered proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is a fact and ToE is the only valid explanation.

I agree that there is room for doubt about lineage where the fossil record is scant.

Precisely, which, in essence, was my original point.

There certainly is much work ahead in this field, & many relationships will likely never be known.

Agreed.

 

[Revoltingest]

If ToE was judged by anything less than the exacting standards of science it would be considered proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

I don't understand this.

 

[LuisDantas]

In other words you had no idea what I was saying when you jumped in and said I had a grave misunderstanding of the basics of ToE.

Hardly.

I have no idea why you think that is a challenge to anyone who understands the ToE, however.

If you go back to the post I first replied to, it doesn't actually make much sense. You talked like there was some need for further fossils to show descendants of specific fossils.

That, in and of itself, betrays a rather poor understanding of the basics of the ToE, or at least of the role of fossils in evidencing it.

Apparently you still fail to understand that. Oh well.

(...) Maybe you should have read my posts where I made it clear that I was not arguing that we could not define any relationship but that we could not define specific ancestor/descendant relationships between species in most cases even though we can say its almost certain.

Not by the fossil record alone, that much is correct. Nearly irrelevant, but correct.

 

[Nepenthe]

Where am I making an argument against evolution?

I am making an argument against people saying that the fossil record shows things that it does not. It is extremely rare for us to have fine enough detail to establish that there is an ancestor/descendant relationship between a pair of species even when we are confident that this is probably the case. What we find establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there is A relationship, in this case common descent.

It also allows us to construct clades based on morphology with high degrees of confidence as to their accuracy, What it rarely allows us to do is state that Species A is an ancestor of Species B, which is not the same as saying (for example) that tetrapods are ultimately ancestors of hominids.



Which pretty much supports what I have been saying all along. Talk Origins was correct in saying that we cannot establish ancestor/descendant relationships between extinct species (in an overwhelming majority of cases), but that does not mean that we cannot establish that there are relationships between extinct species and that common descent is valid (which is what MoF was wrongly implying).

If we make mistakes in our arguments it weakens our case just as much as it weakens the arguments of creationists when they make mistakes (of couse they tend to make mistakes in almost every argument but that is beside the point).

I just read the last couple of pages of this thread so I’m confused. Did somebody disagree with this? Or maybe they misinterpreted you?

Cladistics establish general relationships, not that this specific fossil is directly ancestral to another specific fossil. What can be done from the fossil record is establish nested hierarchies which confirm ancestral relatedness- that is, this animal (holds up fossil) is more closely related to this critter (holds up another fossil) than either of these organisms (holds up both fossils) is related to that extinct beast (points to fossil on other side of table).

I can't see anything like a creationist argument in David M's posts here.

 

[outhouse]

I just read the last couple of pages of this thread so I&#8217;m confused. Did somebody disagree with this? Or maybe they misinterpreted you?

Cladistics establish general relationships, not that this specific fossil is directly ancestral to another specific fossil. What can be done from the fossil record is establish nested hierarchies which confirm ancestral relatedness- that is, this animal (holds up fossil) is more closely related to this critter (holds up another fossil) than either of these organisms (holds up both fossils) is related to that extinct beast (points to fossil on other side of table).

I can't see anything like a creationist argument in David M's posts here.

what it comes down to is david said the the statement below is correct in refference to the picture with all the human ancestors skulls.

I said he is incorrect

The fossil record does not show any fossils that have any ancestor or descendant relationships to any other fossil, that is according to talkorigins

we know neaderthal is a common ancestor and still shows up in our genes. and I believe there are more.

Some of the skulls cannot be tied to direct decendant some of them can and some are up for debate. Some cannot but not all.

the original statement came from a creationist here Prominent Hominid Fossils

Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

and refuted here A Response to Wayne Jackson

To use an analogy, scientific disputes about exact relationships between hominids might be compared to disputes over how wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos, hyenas and foxes are related. On that scale, creationists would still be trying to work out how to tell cats and dogs apart.

 

[David M]

I don't understand this.

Science does not deal in proof, as the saying goes "proof is for mathematics and alcohol". Science will never say a theory had been proved. But by any other standard such as common usage ToE has been proven to be correct.

 

[outhouse]

Science does not deal in proof

when you have a stroke or a heart attack make sure you tell the doctor this when he saves your life anyway, with science.

 

[David M]

Hardly.

I have no idea why you think that is a challenge to anyone who understands the ToE, however.

If you go back to the post I first replied to, it doesn't actually make much sense. You talked like there was some need for further fossils to show descendants of specific fossils.

I said you need a fine detail in the fossil record to establish ancestor/descendant relationships between species in the fossil record. Which is something you agree is true.

Without fine detail you cannot state that species A is a descendant of species B. This is not an argument against common descent but an argument against claiming a certainty that does not exist.

That, in and of itself, betrays a rather poor understanding of the basics of the ToE, or at least of the role of fossils in evidencing it.

No, you are the one betraying a poor understanding of the difference between "a relationship" and "an ancestor/descendant" relationship.

This was never about the basics of ToE, it was about the specific details of the relationships between species in the fossil record.

Apparently you still fail to understand that. Oh well.

No, you fail to understand the difference between the general "tetrapods are ancestors of primates" and the specific "Panderichthys is the ancestor of Acantostega". The former is correctly supported by the fossil record but the latter is only a possibility based in what we currently have in the fossil record.

I just read the last couple of pages of this thread so I&#8217;m confused. Did somebody disagree with this? Or maybe they misinterpreted you?

Cladistics establish general relationships, not that this specific fossil is directly ancestral to another specific fossil. What can be done from the fossil record is establish nested hierarchies which confirm ancestral relatedness- that is, this animal (holds up fossil) is more closely related to this critter (holds up another fossil) than either of these organisms (holds up both fossils) is related to that extinct beast (points to fossil on other side of table).

I can't see anything like a creationist argument in David M's posts here.

That is exactly what I have been saying, with the exception that where we do have fine detail (such as for trilobytes) or DNA (such as for Neandertals) we can establish such ancestral relationships with a high degree of certainty.

we know neaderthal is a common ancestor and still shows up in our genes. and I believe there are more.

No you are wrong again. Perhaps its just that you are being imprecise with your language.

Neandertals are not a common ancestor of H. sapiens or of any other hominid, they went extinct without leaving any descendant species (we can say this with certainty because there extinction was so recent and we are the only Hominid species still around). Neandertals share a common ancestor with H. sapiens and there was limited interbreeding between the 2 species after H. sapiens started moving onto Europe post 60K years ago.

And this confirmation came from DNA, not from the fossils. Before the DNA evidence the case was much less certain.

Some of the skulls cannot be tied to direct decendant some of them can and some are up for debate. Some cannot but not all.

the original statement came from a creationist here Prominent Hominid Fossils

No it didn't. It came from the Hominid Fossils FAQ written by Jim Foley on Talk Origins which is pro-evolution and anti-creationist. I think Mr Foley would be quite insulted by being called a creationist.

and refuted here A Response to Wayne Jackson

Wrong again, in this piece written by Jim Foley he outlines why Wayne Jackson (who is a creationist) is wrong in twisting that quote so as to attack ToE. He does not refute that quote that he wrote, just its misuse by Jackson.

Thanks for supporting my case.

To use an analogy, scientific disputes about exact relationships between hominids might be compared to disputes over how wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingos, hyenas and foxes are related. On that scale, creationists would still be trying to work out how to tell cats and dogs apart.

Yes, as I said fossils alone cannot establish ancestor/descendant relationships unless there is fine detail. Talk Origins was correct in its statement.

 

[outhouse]

Theres two kinds of people dealing with this topic.

Those that spread lies and brainwashing tactics to hold on to ancient beliefs identical to a 4 year old holding on to santa claus. Using every gray area to say were lost and dont know what were dealing with! look its all right here in the gray area! in my opinion.

A clear example is ask a 4 year old any question as an example of human nature. They will always give a answer based off there relative imagination every single time. Its rare that they say the truth "i dont know" Its just human nature to make up things in our minds for questions we dont know. in my opinion

AND

Those that are trying to spread knowledge and further humanity and education to better mankind.

 

[David M]

when you have a stroke or a heart attack make sure you tell the doctor this when he saves your life anyway, with science.

Certainty and science

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science works under a fallibilistic view. Instead, science is proud to make predictions with great probability, bearing in mind that the most likely event is not always what actually happens.

Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to learn the difference between evidence, fact, theory and proof.

 

[outhouse]

I do see wayne quotes the statement, you are correct.

 

[outhouse]

Nearly all modern humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA

Neandertals are not a common ancestor of H. sapiens or of any other hominid, they went extinct without leaving any descendant species

This was the old way of thinking if im not mistaken. In 2010 a new report came out with the data posted above.

 

[David M]

Nearly all modern humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA

This was the old way of thinking if im not mistaken. In 2010 a new report came out with the data posted above.

No this is not the old way of thinking.

Read the report, it shows that Neandertals and what became Eurasian H. sapiens interbreed. Thats why some H. sapiens have a small percentage of DNA derived from Neandertals.

You should note that this is only the case for non-african human lineages, this shows that the interbreeding happened after we started migrating out of africa which means that modern humans had already been around for over 100K years by that point.

Neandertals are not an ancestor of modern humans, they were closely related to us and shared a common ancestor, probably Homo rhodesiensis.