Fossil and Evolution
- Thread starter mijopaalmc
- Start date
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
I'm still here.
I suppose you collectively have heard ever excuse form people to whom you collectively have thought you collectively had given the "scientific smack-down", but I am rereading the posts to make absolutely sure that no-one has provided an answer.
I went and discussed my questions with the resident (and tenured) evolutionary biologist at my alma mater, and he repeated the "arguments" that many have used. I am thus reconsidering the root of my previously mentioned conceptual difficulties. I know that it is unfair that I picked my own trusted authority instead of trusting what you collectively said and, for that, I apologize. Nevertheless, I am making an effort to assimilate some new information so I may not post as often but I will still be reading what is posted on here and the other threads in the forum. I will most probably also have more questions that I will post.
Thank you for your relative patience.
Sincerely,
Michael
I suppose you collectively have heard ever excuse form people to whom you collectively have thought you collectively had given the "scientific smack-down", but I am rereading the posts to make absolutely sure that no-one has provided an answer.
I went and discussed my questions with the resident (and tenured) evolutionary biologist at my alma mater, and he repeated the "arguments" that many have used. I am thus reconsidering the root of my previously mentioned conceptual difficulties. I know that it is unfair that I picked my own trusted authority instead of trusting what you collectively said and, for that, I apologize. Nevertheless, I am making an effort to assimilate some new information so I may not post as often but I will still be reading what is posted on here and the other threads in the forum. I will most probably also have more questions that I will post.
Thank you for your relative patience.
Sincerely,
Michael
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
No need to apologize for checking multiple sources. I hope you can get this sorted out for yourself.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Well, I guess he was a creationist. They can't understand the answers. And if there are any doubts, check out the thread about the recent abiogenesis results for his pithy response and tangential reasoning.
What sort of answer would satisfy a creationist? Only the one he wanted to hear--that there is no good fossil evidence. All the rest never penetraited his faith encrusted brain. He was deceptive, as creationists always are, and pretended to want to know. But he wanted to prove to himself that science doesn't know that evolution is correct.
I've just seen so many threads started the same way...with all these smart people really giving as much as they can to help a person understand--only to realize that the person did not want to understand. They wanted to bolster a belief and say, "even the scientists don't know..."
Ugh...faith is recipe for both ignorance and arrogance. Dr. A., you were mistaken. Sure, he's not Kleinman--but he is a creationist. He has no interest in the DNA evidence or any real evidence--he just wanted to bolster his beliefs by doing an investigation and finding the fossil record spotty.
Notice--there were great explanations despite his dismissal of them all; and he never explained what he meant by disconuity. He never explained what sort of answer would satisfy him (my guess is none). Do you think he went to a single link? Do you think he read anyone as carefully as others read and responded in detail to his posts. I think not.
Creationsist tend to be a deceptive, time-wasting lot.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
For all of you who posted such wonderful responses, please do not think that your time and effort were wasted. I learned more in this one thread than I have anywhere else all week. Thanks!
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
What do you think a satisfactory answer would have been?--or do you suspect, like I do, that nothing true would be the correct answer--only verification that there is no good fossil evidence for evolution. By the way, I thought you explanation was really on target and easy to understand--unless you have a vested interest in not being able to do so.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Thanks. Sometimes, I get so disgusted (like Dawkins) with the insincere questions asked by creationists. But lots of people read this forum. And many of us once had faith-molded thinking--a seed of thought can be planted. Plus it's cool that we live in a world where the latest information is available like this for those who really want to know the facts.
I think the woos are out in numbers because it's spring break--
I think this info. is so interesting, that I want to share it with everybody. But some people would rather believe they have the truth rather than find out the facts--especially if the facts put their "truth" in question.
BTW, I learned a lot too.
Last edited:
Thank you. No further questions.Well, that is really not my fault. To be completely transparent, I went to Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington which is only chartered to grant BA's but if it so pleases you (and I mean that in the least condescending way possible), you can look at the requirements for the degree in the course catalog, which you can find at the college website, and determine whether the degree lends itself to a thorough understanding of science and the scientific method. I also understand as the degree doesn't require a course in evolutionary biology, which I didn't take due to scheduling conflicts, I may not understand evolution as thoroughly as originally I thought I did when I first posted. Evolution was only covered briefly in so far as it related to the course material. Thus, evolution was covered on the context of genetics, cell biology, physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology, and not vice versa. In other words, evolution was ancillary to the main topic of the course and therefore covered very briefly when compared to how much detail, for instance, the Krebs cycle was covered in cell biology. In fact, the "and this is a result of evolution" aspect was often covered in a very ad hoc hand-wavy way almost, as I recall, as if saying it made it so.
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
Y'know, simply questioning the consistency with which the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution are dealt on this forum does not make me a creationist. I think you just want to pigeonhole me so you can just pat yourself on the back for having weeded out another creationist liar (boy, you're becoming fast at that). You ignored that my question were about things as they appear (i.e., when I scaled the life of the Earth to a day, a common analogy to describe the fleetingness of humanity and civilization, common evolutionary time frames were not within the limit that make the appear continuous to humans) not the way things are (i.e., evolution is empirically verifiable both in nature and in the laboratory, as I found here and here on TalkOrigins). I was trying (and I am sorely sorry that I didn't say this before in this way) what has been empirically observed over the past century or so in living nature and what I reasoned to from the fossil record.
Feel free to point out the faultiness of my reasoning about the fossil, but please don't attack me as a creationist.
Last edited:
There is no conceptual relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution occured, no matter what form abiogenesis took.
Secondly, I believe you have been answered a number of times by myself and other posts. Care to comment on these posts?
OK, let's try things in reverse.
How do you explain the presence of organic life in this universe?
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
If we are going to get any I think that I going to need an explanation of the connection of your question to the topic at hand.
I personally believe in evolution, but right now my belief in evolution is, at least I feel, very much unjustified (or at least I don't possess the breadth and depth of knwoledge to justify it to myself). I was raised non-religiously; so I at least I don't think I have to contend with creationism as a religious belief. As I have said before, I am just trying to reconcile what I perceive as a discontinuous record of evolution in fossils with what is overwhelming evidence for evolution as demonstrated studies done on living populations. I was trying to illuminate what exactly what I was confused about with the analogy (which has caused me no end of depillating trouble) was that, depending on how the life of the Earth is scaled to familiar (or intuitive) time scales, the evolutions of various organisms seem to happen in discrete increments (more discrete than a single generation), much like cutting frames out of a film reel or making a time-lapse film. I have no alternative explanation for the progression through intermediate forms to what exists today; that's why I'm not denying evolution, the existence of intermediate forms, the existence of "enough time" for evolution to happen, punctuated equilibrium, etc.
Can anyone help me with the reconciliation process? Or possibly explain to me if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
I can't help you but I would urge you to complete your investigation to your satisfaction in an intellectually honest and scientific manner. I do feel that you may be making a critical error in your view of the plausibility of evolution "fitting" into the timeframe as you have envisioned it. Unlike physical phenomena, complex reactions and natural selection do not follow a simple thermodynamic model such that their rates of change are always constant. Environmental conditions could vary and would either greatly enhance or inhibit the rates at which speciation would occur.
Unfortunately, models that predict the number or type of significant changes in species can only be used to interpolate, not extrapolate. Applying today's rate of change to populations of prehistory is not responsible science. Perhaps you will discover an element of this phenomenon that was overlooked before.
Good luck.
Maybe you've missed my previous posts.
I would very much like to see your reply to the several posts which appear to answer your question.
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
I'll try to respond in a timely fashion, but I read slowly so it will take me some time (about a day or so) to review the thread. However, from what I recall they mostly addressed the existence of other evidence for evolution, rather than just the fossil evidence. I say this because I think that a lot of the thread has been spent trying to refute my supposed denial of evolution by presenting other, stronger evidence for evolution. I fear that I would just be repeating myself if tried to explain myself again so I'll wait to reread the thread before i stick my foot in my mouth.
If your issue is that you perceive a discontinuity in a fossil record, then provide an example, and maybe someone here will be able to fill in the gap.
In the meanwhile, let's suppose that there "is" a discontinuity in some fossil record. Why is this a problem for you?
No harm done, I read slowly too. I just feel that a few posts have specifically responded to your question of the fossil record, and not all of evolution in general. I honestly look forward to your comments, even if it is simply "this doesn't address my question, and here's why".
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
My underlining.
We know that the record is discontinuous --- not every animal is fossilised.
And the theory of evolution does not say that every animal should be fossilised. It does say that some of those that are fossilised should be intermediate forms, and they are.
There is nothing to "reconcile" here: there is no contradiction between a process being continuous and the record of it being discontinuous.
In the same way, film footage of, say, World War II, is discontinuous, at the rate of 50 frames a second. There is no puzzle as to how to "reconcile" that with the fact that events during World War II took place continuously rather than in discrete frames with 1/50th of a second between them.
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
After thinking this issue over a bit, I think this thread may be an excellent comment on the limitations in the way we teach evolution and, by extension, scientific thinking in general. I don't know how to say this without sounding condescending, so I'm just going to say it, so here goes.
I think one of the reasons that folks initially jumped all over the OP is because the creationist strawman characterization of the fossil record has, unfortunately, seeped into general consciousness. Or, maybe that way of thinking comes more naturally to us while the scientific framework is more alien to us as a general thought process.
Honestly, I am not aware of anyone stating that the fossil record shows evolution as a continuous process, but there may be plenty of folks out there doing just that. In his essays, Gould frequently railed against the direct line pictograms that show us emerging from some ape ancestor in a step-wise fashion since that is not what the theory even predicts (bushes, not line drawings). Is there, perhaps, so much ignorance of how the scientific method works that even recent college graduates in the life sciences are not provided the framework to think through these problems adequately? If so, isn't that all of our faults?
I think one of the reasons that folks initially jumped all over the OP is because the creationist strawman characterization of the fossil record has, unfortunately, seeped into general consciousness. Or, maybe that way of thinking comes more naturally to us while the scientific framework is more alien to us as a general thought process.
Honestly, I am not aware of anyone stating that the fossil record shows evolution as a continuous process, but there may be plenty of folks out there doing just that. In his essays, Gould frequently railed against the direct line pictograms that show us emerging from some ape ancestor in a step-wise fashion since that is not what the theory even predicts (bushes, not line drawings). Is there, perhaps, so much ignorance of how the scientific method works that even recent college graduates in the life sciences are not provided the framework to think through these problems adequately? If so, isn't that all of our faults?
I told you (all) so.
I got jumped all over for it, too. I'll accept the various apologies from everyone via PM, since there's no reason to clutter this thread further.