• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil and Evolution

Taffer said:
What, kleinman? Why would I want to say kle...

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Damn...now the "klei..." meme has gotten in my head. Damn, damn, damn. And the weekends are supposed to be a reprieve--maybe we'll even get some bonus time with "good Friday"...

(and curses for me for thinking I wanted the answer--)
 
articulett said:
Damn...now the "klei..." meme has gotten in my head.
Click to expand...
(Bolding mine)

First off, I'm not picking on you here, Articulett (for a change! :bgrin: ), I was intending to pluck that word out next time I saw it used in the wrong place. (Or itself a meme doomed to early extinction)

I have started to see this word used as a simile for "idea/thought". I don't think it applies in the meaning that Dawkins gave it, in the sentence above. (the thought of Kleimann is more like the Ear Worm of SatanTM) If that's all the word means, then why do we bother using it?

I find it quite interesting the way this word, which was unknown thirty years ago, is suddenly finding its way into popular lexicon. It's not the only one, but it seems the most current.
 
articulett said:
Calling the answers "pat" is insulting.
Click to expand...
Then maybe this is an insult that certain people should collectively swallow.

---

Mijopaalmc did not say that there were no intermediate forms, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

Mijopaalmc did not say that there was not enough time for evolution, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

Mijopaalmc did not say that there was no evidence for evolution, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

---

I've seen a lot of "pat answers" on this thread from people who haven't understood mijopaalmc's question. If those people want to feel that I have "insulted" them by my answers --- then that is fine by me: you may feel insulted if you wish, it's a free country; but it was not my intention to insult you.
 
Dr Adequate said:
No, this refers to the fact that dephi ote's avatar is a guy drinking out of a bottle.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Like posters calling you "Dr Inadequate", being called an alcoholic is a hallmark of subtle genius that makes me feel warm inside every time.

The guy is actually delphi from a movie I made 5 years ago... before I drank. :D
 
cbish said:
[...]The fossil record is probably the weakest evidence of evolution we have[...]
Click to expand...

I had to reread the thread several times before I discovered this statement. This was sort of the sentiment that I was trying to get at in my first post, and I should have probably gone about it in a different way. Rather than hiding behind extraneous personal details and what I thought was a clever analogy. I should have just asked outright:

Given the the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, how does one explain how a succession of fossils with wide temporal separation constitutes a continuous progression?

The current fossil record does not appear to demonstrate a continuous and smooth progression; that however doesn't mean that evolution isn't smooth and continuous. I focussed on this fact, even attempting to provide an analogy the to way humans perceive continuous motion in their daily lives, because not only did it represent a deficit in my own understanding of evolution but it also seemed to provide a direct explanation of how evolution has progressed throughout the ages. It would be basically saying, "here are organism that existed long ago and there forms progress in a orderly fashion and, if scaled correctly, the changes appear continuous and, since evolution operates over large periods of time, the changes would appear continuous over what is called 'evolutionary time'." However, since the fossil evidence is too fragmentary to do that, I will just have to content myself with presenting the more, for lack of a better word, abstract genetic evidence.

My intent (which is completely irrelevant to the validity of any argument I might make) was never to refute evolution by exposing the fossil record as "gappy". Rather, I was wondering what kind of heuristic value can be derived from the fossil record given its incompleteness. Should discussion of the fossil record be avoided because of its "gappiness"? Or is there an intellectually honest way given the appearance of "discontinuity" in the fossil record?
 
delphi_ote said:
Exactly. Like posters calling you "Dr Inadequate", being called an alcoholic is a hallmark of subtle genius that makes me feel warm inside every time.
Click to expand...

I figured the Scotch would do that for you.

delphi_ote said:
The guy is actually delphi from a movie I made 5 years ago... before I drank. :D
Click to expand...

Having been hypnotized by him many times, I only tonight noticed he doesn't actually take a drink. He just reaches for the bottle then it loops back to him wiping his brow.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I figured the Scotch would do that for you.



Having been hypnotized by him many times, I only tonight noticed he doesn't actually take a drink. He just reaches for the bottle then it loops back to him wiping his brow.
Click to expand...

He seems to have a shot glass (or other small drink glass) in his other hand and appears to take a drink from it before the gif loops.
 
mijopaalmc said:
My point has mainly been that our claims to knowledge seem to far outstrip the current state of evidence, not that this discrepancy will never be resolved or that it even severly undermines evolution (both of which I don't believe). Thus, it seems that skeptics (as most of us are) would want to make conservative claims to knowledge based on the evidence.


In sum, I am not questioning the existence of evolution but rather the representation of evolution as continuous given the cureent extant evidence. Moreover, I am looking for a way to explain how the fossil record demonstrates the continutiy of evolution given its current fragmentary state.
Click to expand...

OK--you're not a creationist, and presumably you do accept evolution by natural selection as the organizing principle of biology, right?

You just don't accept the "continuity" of evolution. What's the alternative? Some sort of non-creationist discontinuous appearance of new species?

Even punctuated equilibrium assumes continuous change (i.e. no discontinuous jumps--just periods where selection favors changes more quickly and periods where selection favors the status quo). No matter how you look at it, any given generation looks very much like the previous one.

Please remember that the fossil record is only a part of the story. Also, you can't really make any argument based on what doesn't appear in the fossil record. (Again, that way of thinking smacks of the "god of gaps" thinking of creationists.)
 
Dr Adequate said:
Then maybe this is an insult that certain people should collectively swallow.

---

Mijopaalmc did not say that there were no intermediate forms, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

Mijopaalmc did not say that there was not enough time for evolution, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

Mijopaalmc did not say that there was no evidence for evolution, but some people replied with the "pat answer" to that question, as though he had asked it.

---

I've seen a lot of "pat answers" on this thread from people who haven't understood mijopaalmc's question. If those people want to feel that I have "insulted" them by my answers --- then that is fine by me: you may feel insulted if you wish, it's a free country; but it was not my intention to insult you.
Click to expand...
Well my "pat" answers were intended to address the things I don't hear brought up by scientists and skeptics when addressing "pat" evolution questions. They were not specifically aimed at Mijo's question. I wrote them for skeptics as much as anyone.

Any chance you might just say what you interpreted Mijo to be asking since now he himself says he wasn't sure?
 
mijopaalmc said:
I had to reread the thread several times before I discovered this statement. This was sort of the sentiment that I was trying to get at in my first post, and I should have probably gone about it in a different way. Rather than hiding behind extraneous personal details and what I thought was a clever analogy. I should have just asked outright:

Given the the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, how does one explain how a succession of fossils with wide temporal separation constitutes a continuous progression?

The current fossil record does not appear to demonstrate a continuous and smooth progression; that however doesn't mean that evolution isn't smooth and continuous. I focussed on this fact, even attempting to provide an analogy the to way humans perceive continuous motion in their daily lives, because not only did it represent a deficit in my own understanding of evolution but it also seemed to provide a direct explanation of how evolution has progressed throughout the ages. It would be basically saying, "here are organism that existed long ago and there forms progress in a orderly fashion and, if scaled correctly, the changes appear continuous and, since evolution operates over large periods of time, the changes would appear continuous over what is called 'evolutionary time'." However, since the fossil evidence is too fragmentary to do that, I will just have to content myself with presenting the more, for lack of a better word, abstract genetic evidence.

My intent (which is completely irrelevant to the validity of any argument I might make) was never to refute evolution by exposing the fossil record as "gappy". Rather, I was wondering what kind of heuristic value can be derived from the fossil record given its incompleteness. Should discussion of the fossil record be avoided because of its "gappiness"? Or is there an intellectually honest way given the appearance of "discontinuity" in the fossil record?
Click to expand...

Well that seems silly. You are saying to leave some evidence out because it isn't all the evidence?

The fossil record is important and should be included. But the confirmation was made with understanding of the genetic mechanisms which bring about evolution.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Given the the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, how does one explain how a succession of fossils with wide temporal separation constitutes a continuous progression?

The current fossil record does not appear to demonstrate a continuous and smooth progression; that however doesn't mean that evolution isn't smooth and continuous. I focussed on this fact, even attempting to provide an analogy the to way humans perceive continuous motion in their daily lives, because not only did it represent a deficit in my own understanding of evolution but it also seemed to provide a direct explanation of how evolution has progressed throughout the ages. It would be basically saying, "here are organism that existed long ago and there forms progress in a orderly fashion and, if scaled correctly, the changes appear continuous and, since evolution operates over large periods of time, the changes would appear continuous over what is called 'evolutionary time'." However, since the fossil evidence is too fragmentary to do that, I will just have to content myself with presenting the more, for lack of a better word, abstract genetic evidence.

My intent (which is completely irrelevant to the validity of any argument I might make) was never to refute evolution by exposing the fossil record as "gappy". Rather, I was wondering what kind of heuristic value can be derived from the fossil record given its incompleteness. Should discussion of the fossil record be avoided because of its "gappiness"? Or is there an intellectually honest way given the appearance of "discontinuity" in the fossil record?
Click to expand...

As I commented previously, if you venture away from vertebrates and look at clams, squids, snails, and the many varieties of microfossils, the sheer numbers of morphologically intermediate forms will knock his socks off.

This means that, in certain groups there is much more continuity than you seem to think. Certainly many groups are not well represented in the fossil record, but there are more than enough nice examples of progression. Please consider that your impression of 'gappiness' might be a bit exaggerated.
 
mijopaalmc said:
I had to reread the thread several times before I discovered this statement. This was sort of the sentiment that I was trying to get at in my first post, and I should have probably gone about it in a different way. Rather than hiding behind extraneous personal details and what I thought was a clever analogy. I should have just asked outright:

Given the the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, how does one explain how a succession of fossils with wide temporal separation constitutes a continuous progression?

The current fossil record does not appear to demonstrate a continuous and smooth progression; that however doesn't mean that evolution isn't smooth and continuous. I focussed on this fact, even attempting to provide an analogy the to way humans perceive continuous motion in their daily lives, because not only did it represent a deficit in my own understanding of evolution but it also seemed to provide a direct explanation of how evolution has progressed throughout the ages. It would be basically saying, "here are organism that existed long ago and there forms progress in a orderly fashion and, if scaled correctly, the changes appear continuous and, since evolution operates over large periods of time, the changes would appear continuous over what is called 'evolutionary time'." However, since the fossil evidence is too fragmentary to do that, I will just have to content myself with presenting the more, for lack of a better word, abstract genetic evidence.

My intent (which is completely irrelevant to the validity of any argument I might make) was never to refute evolution by exposing the fossil record as "gappy". Rather, I was wondering what kind of heuristic value can be derived from the fossil record given its incompleteness. Should discussion of the fossil record be avoided because of its "gappiness"? Or is there an intellectually honest way given the appearance of "discontinuity" in the fossil record?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure I already addressed this question. Were you not satisfied with my answer?
 
mijopaalmc said:
Rather, I was wondering what kind of heuristic value can be derived from the fossil record given its incompleteness.
Click to expand...
1 _ _ 4 _ _ 7 _ 9 10 _ _ _ 14 _ _ 17 18 19 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28 29 _ 31

That series of integers is incomplete, but we can certainly make an educated guess as to what the blank values are. In any science, we have to make extrapolations between our measurements. That extrapolation is a theory. If we find another bit of evidence, maybe the series looks like this:

1 _ _ 4 _ _ 7 _ 9 10 _ _ _ 14 _ _ 17 18 19 _ _ _ _ 24 _ _ _ 28 29 _ 31

We're more confident in our hypothesis. If it looks like this:

1 _ _ 4 _ _ 7 _ 9 10 _ _ _ 14 _ _ 17 18 19 _ _ _ _ 51.7 _ _ _ 28 29 _ 31

our theory certainly has to be modified or thrown away.

The fossil record is incomplete, imperfect, sometimes confusing, but we can definitely extrapolate from it valuable evidence for evolution.
 
I'm just curious: when people say the fossil record is incomplete, what exactly do they mean? That we haven't yet dug up all the fossils that are in the ground available to us? That the fossil record doesn't show every species (or a sample of every population, or every individual) that ever lived?

In other words, what would it mean for the fossil record to be "complete"?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm just curious: when people say the fossil record is incomplete, what exactly do they mean? That we haven't yet dug up all the fossils that are in the ground available to us? That the fossil record doesn't show every species (or a sample of every population, or every individual) that ever lived?

In other words, what would it mean for the fossil record to be "complete"?
Click to expand...

Generally, I think they mean that it isn't a comprehensive sample of all transitional forms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom