The Evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record

[metis]

What some simply don't realize is that these gaps have been and still are being filled in gradually. However, it's virtually impossible to fill all gaps or to fill any completely. The minute a newly found fossil fits in between two previous finds, then two shorter gaps emerge from one larger one.


1.X------X
2.X--X--X

See what I mean?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't have to see $1,000,000 in order to know it exists so long as 1+1=2. When I have all but a handful of numbers, following the same theoretical pattern, I can pretty much bank on that pattern being accurate for other areas of math, right?

Of course. It's called creating an inference based on evidence. There would be no science without that act of reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

What some simply don't realize is that these gaps have been and still are being filled in gradually. However, it's virtually impossible to fill all gaps or to fill any completely. The minute a newly found fossil fits in between two previous finds, then two shorter gaps emerge from one larger one.


1.X------X
2.X--X--X

See what I mean?

There is a Futurama episode that illustrates this beautifully.

 

[Curious George]

I don't have to see $1,000,000 in order to know it exists so long as 1+1=2. When I have all but a handful of numbers, following the same theoretical pattern, I can pretty much bank on that pattern being accurate for other areas of math, right?

Similarly as we put together a puzzle, all the pieces are not required to discern a picture.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What some simply don't realize is that these gaps have been and still are being filled in gradually. However, it's virtually impossible to fill all gaps or to fill any completely. The minute a newly found fossil fits in between two previous finds, then two shorter gaps emerge from one larger one.


1.X------X
2.X--X--X

See what I mean?

Precisely. That's what makes science so fascinating. For every single discovery made, a new question emerges.

Another example: I do a lot of ancestral research. Often times, as is our culture, I can follow patriarchal lines quite easily. What's more difficult is following matriarchal lines. Similarly, sons and fathers, aren't too complicated. But sons of father's brothers (cousins) are. For every male and female name I discover, and for every bit of data that I uncover, a new set of questions arises. A new set of data has to be studied.

If I know a grandfather and a grandson, I can obviously infer that there was a middle father in there, right? The same is true of evolutionary discoveries. If I can discover a previous familial species, I can very safely infer that there exists (or existed) a transitional preceding species. In the same way that higher climate salamanders are directly related the lower climate salamander, the extinction of middle climate salamanders doesn't change the fact that one was required for the other to exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's what I thought. I've never heard of "the entirety of Classical Physics" being falsified. Was that just made up?

the 'immutable' laws of physics were rendered fundamentally flawed in accounting for the physical universe absolutely. That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named, illustrates the resistance, discomfort of upending such cornerstones of science. Planck commented that ideas like these were considered so unpalatable, they would only be accepted through death of older scientists and younger ones growing up open to the new ideas.

I think the fundamental flaw in classical physics is the same with classical evolution, that it is simple, elegant, satisfying, attractive, comfortable, too much for it's own good, too much to combat the entropy that would collapse the universe under classical physics, and collapse life under classical evolution

 

[leibowde84]

the 'immutable' laws of physics were rendered fundamentally flawed in accounting for the physical universe absolutely. That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named, illustrates the resistance, discomfort of upending such cornerstones of science. Planck commented that ideas like these were considered so unpalatable, they would only be accepted through death of older scientists and younger ones growing up open to the new ideas.

I think the fundamental flaw in classical physics is the same with classical evolution, that it is simple, elegant, satisfying, attractive, comfortable, too much for it's own good, too much to combat the entropy that would collapse the universe under classical physics, and collapse life under classical evolution

It seems like you are saying, "evolultion deserves added scrutiny because it makes so much sense." The difference between physics and evolution is one, often, is theoretical in nature, while evolution is based on concrete evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Similarly as we put together a puzzle, all the pieces are not required to discern a picture.

just not always the correct one- like this!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It seems like you are saying, "evolultion deserves added scrutiny because it makes so much sense." The difference between physics and evolution is one, often, is theoretical in nature, while evolution is based on concrete evidence.

classical physics was far more accessible to direct observation, repeatable experiment, accurate measurement than evolution was it not?

I think concluding that the entire physical universe operated on the same simplistic superficial observations of apples falling from trees- deserved scrutiny for trying to explain complex functionality spontaneously emerging from simplicity- and with it claiming no room for God as some did.

Exactly so with classical evolution- the simplicity is why it doesn't make sense. And the same reason the common man rejected God being replaced with Netwon's laws, they were correct in their logic.

 

[jonathan180iq]

the 'immutable' laws of physics were rendered fundamentally flawed in accounting for the physical universe absolutely. That the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named, illustrates the resistance, discomfort of upending such cornerstones of science. Planck commented that ideas like these were considered so unpalatable, they would only be accepted through death of older scientists and younger ones growing up open to the new ideas.

I think the fundamental flaw in classical physics is the same with classical evolution, that it is simple, elegant, satisfying, attractive, comfortable, too much for it's own good, too much to combat the entropy that would collapse the universe under classical physics, and collapse life under classical evolution

So there was a problem (which has been subsequently solved) which some people pushed back against. Does that mean that all of classical physics has been abandoned and found to be a failed endeavour?

Nope. It doesn't.

Are the flaws that have been exposed in evolutionary theory been discovered and subsequently repaired or solved?

Yep. Yes they have.

 

[leibowde84]

classical physics was far more accessible to direct observation, repeatable experiment, accurate measurement than evolution was it not?

I think concluding that the entire physical universe operated on the same simplistic superficial observations of apples falling from trees- deserved scrutiny for trying to explain complex functionality spontaneously emerging from simplicity- and with it claiming no room for God as some did.

Exactly so with classical evolution- the simplicity is why it doesn't make sense. And the same reason the common man rejected God being replaced with Netwon's laws, they were correct in their logic.

Why do you think it is "simple"? It is an incredibly complicated process based on randomness and physical advantage. Doesn't get more complicated or unpredictable than that. The "strong" have the advantage, but there are so many outside factors that they don't always come out on top.

 

[Curious George]

just not always the correct one- like this!

Lol. And prior to having the pieces that we have today we believed all sorts of weird things such as a geocentric solar system, that the earth was flat, that the earth was created 6k years ago, that rains or drought was evidence of some gods pleasure or dissatisfaction, etc, etc.

But what is truly astonishing is that given what pieces we do have people are still holding on to the whimsical belief that somewhere in the gaps of our knowledge rests validation for our previous misconceptions.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol. And prior to having the pieces that we have today we believed all sorts of weird things such as a geocentric solar system, that the earth was flat, that the earth was created 6k years ago, that rains or drought was evidence of some gods pleasure or dissatisfaction, etc, etc.

But what is truly astonishing is that given what pieces we do have people are still holding on to the whimsical belief that somewhere in the gaps of our knowledge rests validation for our previous misconceptions.

You are smart.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lol. And prior to having the pieces that we have today we believed all sorts of weird things such as a geocentric solar system, that the earth was flat, that the earth was created 6k years ago, that rains or drought was evidence of some gods pleasure or dissatisfaction, etc, etc.

But what is truly astonishing is that given what pieces we do have people are still holding on to the whimsical belief that somewhere in the gaps of our knowledge rests validation for our previous misconceptions.

Very true, many still believe rains and drought or any undesirable weather is caused human activity angering Gaia, that the static/eternal universes preferred by atheists over Lemaitre's primeval atom- still exist beyond the realm of possible observation in weird multiverses and membranes, that beyond the great silence of the galaxy, alien intelligence still must lurk somewhere to make humans 'unremarkable'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do you think it is "simple"? It is an incredibly complicated process based on randomness and physical advantage. Doesn't get more complicated or unpredictable than that. The "strong" have the advantage, but there are so many outside factors that they don't always come out on top.

exactly my point - the universe is an incredibly complicated mechanism, once believed to operate entirely on a couple of simple laws. it don't work

All the beautiful functionality of the universe was written into very specific underlying blueprints which entirely determine those specific superficial observations of the physical world

 

[leibowde84]

exactly my point - the universe is an incredibly complicated mechanism, once believed to operate entirely on a couple of simple laws. it don't work

All the beautiful functionality of the universe was written into very specific underlying blueprints which entirely determine those specific superficial observations of the physical world

How do you go from "complicated" to "designed"? There are tons of complex things that aren't designed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you go from "complicated" to "designed"? There are tons of complex things that aren't designed.

complex functional mechanisms, not simply complex- scattering the code on this website would give you something complex, but not functional

 

[Curious George]

Very true, many still believe rains and drought or any undesirable weather is caused human activity angering Gaia, that the static/eternal universes preferred by atheists over Lemaitre's primeval atom- still exist beyond the realm of possible observation in weird multiverses and membranes, that beyond the great silence of the galaxy, alien intelligence still must lurk somewhere to make humans 'unremarkable'

Um why are the static eternal universes preferred by atheists? Pretty sure that we do not find an atheist description of events anywhere. However, we can find religious authority after religious authority asserting mistaken beliefs within their framework. That people have extended their minds to suggest the unlikely- even goddidit theories is not in and of itself wrong. It is the clinging to these events in spite of evidence to the contrary. The emerging picture leads us to one conclusion- evolution happens. Now, I don't mind people inserting a God into the picture still, no more than I mind people inserting aliens into the picture. What I object to is the refusal to accept evolution without explaining away our pieces to the puzzle that we do have. Concepts such as string theory or multiverses, or even aliens seeding the earth with life may seem strange but at least the proponents of these strange theories work within the bounds of what we currently know. When a religious person asserts that God had some control over the creation of life- this is not out of hand. But when they reject evolution which accurately describes the picture discernible thus far, and offer no explanation of how to account for our puzzle pieces, one cannot help but laugh. Evolution happens, some religions who tried to deny this were wrong...they need to get over it. We need to take the evidence and use inductive reasoning to make logical inferences. These logical inferences need to be tested and when they fail the tests we need to rethink our inferences and make new ones because we now have another piece.

If people want to hold on to currently untestable ideas- like aliens or god or multiverses- that is fine. But when some facet of their beliefs becomes testable, they like everyone else need to get with the times and accept the results...make new inferences and move on.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Um why are the static eternal universes preferred by atheists? Pretty sure that we do not find an atheist description of events anywhere. However, we can find religious authority after religious authority asserting mistaken beliefs within their framework. That people have extended their minds to suggest the unlikely- even goddidit theories is not in and of itself wrong. It is the clinging to these events in spite of evidence to the contrary. The emerging picture leads us to one conclusion- evolution happens. Now, I don't mind people inserting a God into the picture still, no more than I mind people inserting aliens into the picture. What I object to is the refusal to accept evolution without explaining away our pieces to the puzzle that we do have. Concepts such as string theory or multiverses, or even aliens seeding the earth with life may seem strange but at least the proponents of these strange theories work within the bounds of what we currently know. When a religious person asserts that God had some control over the creation of life- this is not out of hand. But when they reject evolution which accurately describes the picture discernible thus far, and offer no explanation of how to account for our puzzle pieces, one cannot help but laugh. Evolution happens, some religions who tried to deny this were wrong...they need to get over it. We need to take the evidence and use inductive reasoning to make logical inferences. These logical inferences need to be tested and when they fail the tests we need to rethink our inferences and make new ones because we now have another piece.

If people want to hold on to currently untestable ideas- like aliens or god or multiverses- that is fine. But when some facet of their beliefs becomes testable, they like everyone else need to get with the times and accept the results...make new inferences and move on.

this is for another thread- but it was the explicit rationale of atheists like Hoyle at the time (no creation = no creator) who mocked the Big Bang for the religious implications of a specific creation event. 'religious pseudoscience'

remind me who was right, and who clung to old beliefs despite contrary evidence? Hoyle rejected the big bang to his dying day.

Lemaitre never once connected his theory with God, only atheists did that- i.e. the biggest scientific discovery of all time was a battle of science v atheism, and Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism which allowed science to prevail. (eventually)

This thread runs through many atheist creation myths like 'Big Crunch' which Hawking posited to 'make God redundant' in his own words.- I agree with you- move on- it should not be about trying to make God redundant, but finding the truth, whatever the implications

 

[Ouroboros]

That's what I thought. I've never heard of "the entirety of Classical Physics" being falsified. Was that just made up?

Yeah. That's not accurate. Classical physics hasn't been falsified. It still applies, but only in a given context. It doesn't work close to light speed.