|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world. To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made & #8203;& #8203;use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “. Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe. After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” |
Quote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
Quote:
Quote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
This is quite a quandary. Who are we to believe on what Gould thought? A quote from Gould himself or a guy on a sports message board?
Its obvious, you need to go with the BBI member.
My ridicule of you was well earned. There's no shame in not knowing something. There's no shame in holding different beliefs, in the minority, whicheck fly in the face of consensus, as Giordano Bruno and Copernicious did centuries ago.
The shame lies in claiming to hold all of the answers - the Universe and everything in it - spins at the behest of a being who's not shown himself once in several millenia. The believe in God, you must accept one of, if not a combination of:
a) God is a benevolent being who allows the massacre, suffering and destruction of his favorite chosen creation, or;
b) God is powerless to stop it;
c) God is a malevolent being that invokes pain and suffering, to what ends I'm sure I don't know.
My ridicule of you is based not on your beliefs, but the dishonest manner in which you intentionally twist and obfuscate things which are no longer in dispute by reasonable individuals.
Evolution and all that it entails are not in dispute. It's established fact and the evidence is quite literally everywhere, in all forms of life, and are accepted by every scientific discipline.
If you've ever debated learned individuals, as you so claim, I can only surmise the reason you weren't laughed out of the room was their unending patience and politeness.
And I've no doubt that you are, in fact, Spock.
My daughters friend was killed in HS. She was jogging and a senior citizen swerved and hit her. The minister at her funeral kept saying she was so special God wanted her now. I was tempted to ask him why she had to suffer 3 days in the hospital AFTER being hit by a fucking car if she was so special.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Quote:
In comment 12990217 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Quote:
In comment 12990219 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12990217 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Spock did not know enough on how to use the playbook by himself. His answers were even more shallow. He needed his henchman Eunuch to get up to this level.
He's had two years to "bone up."
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.
Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Who is being sensitive here? You say you want a good discussion, yet don't address anything that's been posted that contradicts you- instead you just claim that everyone is being "sensitive".
I'm trying to have a decent back and forth, I haven't resorted to any personal attacks, and have backed up my claims with evidence, yet instead of responding to any of them, you call people "sensitive". Pot or Kettle?
The evidence on this thread points to just one person not wanting to engage in discussion, and one person avoiding anything that challenges their beliefs.
Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar.
This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous.
Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious.
- Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation".
- Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms"
I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation".
I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference.
Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds.
I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Quote:
Actually you seem extremely sensitive about people expressing skepticism about your intentions and honesty.
Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar.
This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous.
Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious.
- Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation".
- Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms"
I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation".
I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference.
Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds.
I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.
Science Against Evolution - ( New Window )
No, that's an opinion.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Ha, ha...I have followed Gould and his work for literally decades. I admire his work and admired him as a person when he was alive. I have nothing but respect and admiration for his knowledge and his life's work.
As far as "transitional fossils" go - there's a link, but the chain is missing. It was the biggest dilemma that Gould faced and he openly stated such. Example: any trace of transition between the most simple life form into a highly complex complete life form with skeletal formation is entirely missing. Are there transitional fossils of various forms of horses? Of course there are. It's just that the oldest fossil of an equine life form is a wholly complete complex horse complete with legs, body, head, teeth, eyes, etc. The links between the goop and the first horse are missing. And therein lies the problem of "transitional" forms found in the fossil record. The ones that Gould pointed out.
Then that leads to other questions by inquisitive people with a thirst for answers. For instance, "why haven't bats, dragonflies, mosquitos, rats, or crocodiles changed - or your basic elephant...to name just a few species that decided not to morph into something else". Some of the oldest fossils ever discovered show a 50 million year old bat virtually identical to modern bats. The skeletal systems of crocodiles indicate no difference between modern and the most ancient. And yes, modern elephants are quite different from ancient elephants, but where did that first ancient elephant come from??? We certainly understand the micro evolution in which modern elephants adapted to a new environment - we just don't know where the first elephant came from and the fossil record does NOT give us a clue.
Gould asked these questions and didn't get ridiculed. Perhaps because he intimidated his colleagues. Gould was not afraid to admit there were questions without answers - and he was an atheist and one of the prime promoters of macro evolution. He was honest and straight forward, unlike today's promoters of macro evolution who have little scientific background and haven't got even the slightest clue why punctualism became a valid alternative hypothesis by Eldrige and Gould in the first place.
Maybe one of you who bash me can explain why Gould adopted punctuated equilibrium (punctualism) as a potential answer to his personal questions and dilemma. That would be an interesting start to intelligent debate.
Okay, you're making the statement. Now prove it. If you can't, it's just another opinion.
I love that you bring up the horse, as it is another example of quote mining:
"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.
Representative quote miners: Darwinism Refuted: The Myth of Horse Evolution and Darwinism Watch: The Old Tale Of The Horse’s Evolution
The article is about a four-day meeting at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago attended, so the article says, by 150 scientists and a very few observers. The mechanisms of evolution were discussed at the meeting, but the article focuses on Punctuated Equilibria.
The following paragraph appears near the beginning of this article:
Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes.
The author goes on to note: "Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists ... [and a discussion of the meeting], followed by:
No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth.
This is a rather serious omission, I think, from the context of the quote in question.
The article goes on to describe gradualism then segues to Eldredge's comments. It states, in regard to Gould and Eldredge's ideas, that:
As they see it, species remain largely stable for long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition happens so fast, they [Gould and Eldredge] suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms being fossilized and found is nil.
Then comes the horse evolution paragraph. There are a couple of immaterial typos in the quote originally supplied. The following is what appears in the article:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
It's a strange paragraph, in that it interrupts the flow of the article. The following paragraph reads:
Eldredge and Gould represent a school of thought called 'punctuated equilibrium,' and although many paleontologists are adherents, many evolutionists from other backgrounds still consider themselves gradualists closer to the Darwinian mold.
The article proceeds to discuss Thomas Schopf's view that what appears to be stasis is not really stasis, for example, because soft parts are not preserved in fossilization. The article closes by stating that population geneticists also dispute Punctuated Equilibria.
- Sarah Berel-Harrop
An article by the same writer appeared the previous day in the New York Times entitled "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution" (page C3). However, this quote isn't in it. But it does include the paragraph that appears in the Houston Chronicle article:
Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
[Editor's note: Perhaps it is significant that the paragraph about the horse sequence, which does not appear at all in the New York Times article, appears to be "stuck in" out-of-place in the Houston Chronicle article. If its inclusion was an editorial decision, rather than the reporter's, the question arises just how objectively the quote itself was presented and whether the editing was fair and represented a complete thought on Boyce Rensberger's part.]
The quote appears to be more an explanation for the general public that the "horse sequence", did not represent an orderly "ladder" running from "primitive" forms to modern Equus, as was originally thought as far back as Darwin's time, but, instead, is a particularly prolific "bush" with many branches that all went extinct, except for Equus. As Kathleen Hunt points out in her article "Horse Evolution" in the Archives.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
Finally, it is a sign of the creationists' attitude toward the issues involved that they would quote a journalist from an article in the popular press on a question of science. As good a journalist as Mr. Rensberger may be, such an article can give only superficial treatment to complex issues. Just made to order for their agenda.
- John (catshark) Pieret
Quote:
evolution takes place. His theory only focused on HOW. He contends that there are fits and starts- none of which is evidence for anything other than fits and starts.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Ha, ha...I have followed Gould and his work for literally decades. I admire his work and admired him as a person when he was alive. I have nothing but respect and admiration for his knowledge and his life's work.
As far as "transitional fossils" go - there's a link, but the chain is missing. It was the biggest dilemma that Gould faced and he openly stated such. Example: any trace of transition between the most simple life form into a highly complex complete life form with skeletal formation is entirely missing. Are there transitional fossils of various forms of horses? Of course there are. It's just that the oldest fossil of an equine life form is a wholly complete complex horse complete with legs, body, head, teeth, eyes, etc. The links between the goop and the first horse are missing. And therein lies the problem of "transitional" forms found in the fossil record. The ones that Gould pointed out.
Then that leads to other questions by inquisitive people with a thirst for answers. For instance, "why haven't bats, dragonflies, mosquitos, rats, or crocodiles changed - or your basic elephant...to name just a few species that decided not to morph into something else". Some of the oldest fossils ever discovered show a 50 million year old bat virtually identical to modern bats. The skeletal systems of crocodiles indicate no difference between modern and the most ancient. And yes, modern elephants are quite different from ancient elephants, but where did that first ancient elephant come from??? We certainly understand the micro evolution in which modern elephants adapted to a new environment - we just don't know where the first elephant came from and the fossil record does NOT give us a clue.
Gould asked these questions and didn't get ridiculed. Perhaps because he intimidated his colleagues. Gould was not afraid to admit there were questions without answers - and he was an atheist and one of the prime promoters of macro evolution. He was honest and straight forward, unlike today's promoters of macro evolution who have little scientific background and haven't got even the slightest clue why punctualism became a valid alternative hypothesis by Eldrige and Gould in the first place.
Maybe one of you who bash me can explain why Gould adopted punctuated equilibrium (punctualism) as a potential answer to his personal questions and dilemma. That would be an interesting start to intelligent debate.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
It is a bush, and it is there.
Quote:
The quote appears to be more an explanation for the general public that the "horse sequence", did not represent an orderly "ladder" running from "primitive" forms to modern Equus, as was originally thought as far back as Darwin's time, but, instead, is a particularly prolific "bush" with many branches that all went extinct, except for Equus. As Kathleen Hunt points out in her article "Horse Evolution" in the Archives.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
Quote:
...
Sort of like a mule.
Ebony and Ivory.
I don't think anyone is pointing to a "straight line diagram", but rather the entire roots and trunk to the nicely drawn "tree of life" we've all been force fed since youth, is where the battle lines are drawn and no one wants to go there for a discussion. They prefer to get bogged down in the details of the leaves and its DNA, and RNA, and whether or not protein can be synthesized, etc. That has educational value, but it doesn't explain the seedling, the roots, or the tree trunk.
Gould said: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
It seems to matter little to the promoters of the origin of life by unseen random luck, that the evolutionists' phylogenic tree is made up of leaves, but the roots, trunk, and branches have to be assumed because we are all pre-programmed because of a picture of the evolutionary tree of life drawn in our high school biology books and in National Geographic.
It's great that we can build taxonomy charts based on observation, diagnosis, and precise calculation in order to identify the billions of life forms - especially when bitten by an unknown spider or snake and one wishes to know if medical attention is necessary. But again - taxonomy charts are the glorious leaves of tree that is sadly missing except in our imaginations. I'm far more interested in the roots and the trunk of the tree...ahem, "macro-evolution" than the obvious represented by the leaves.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
Well, sorry if you don't like the definition of some words. But the root of the word "natural" is "nature". Hence, anything to do with life (i.e., "nature") on planet earth is "natural". If that bothers you so much, I won't refer to that again. Seems kind of petty and silly to argue over.
If this conversation is "pointless", why do you waste valuable time of your life tapping out responses in a weak attempt to ridicule me? Those reactions are things that make me scratch my head. I see many threads in which I disagree with someone, but I'll not waste my time trying to ridicule an unknown individual. That's senseless. To me anyway.
As far as creationism goes, I have not once tried to promote it and I have clearly said that creation cannot be proven and furthermore, I can't tell you enough how much I could care less what you believe. I certainly don't want to convert you to anything. Why would anyone possibly care whether or not you accept a certain explanation as to our existence? As for me, I just don't believe random luck in a whirlpool of chaos makes anything that requires trillions of infinitesimally small details to fall into perfect place. If you do - that's fine. I would never ridicule you or anyone else for that matter. Seriously, what would be the purpose? I don't make fun of someone and have never ridiculed those who adhere to Panspermia or any other ideas of origin and our existence. I just never understood why anyone would care if someone believed in a creator or in any other explanation of origins of life. What possible difference does it make to you? Strange behavior if you ask me.