In a recent thread, kevlar asked where all the transitional fossils were. Specifically he pointed out that every fish-like amphibian or amphibian-like fish fossil found was either classified as a fish or a tetrapod. At the time I pointed out that "fish" and "tetropod" are arbitary labels, not precise definitions and all the fish-like amphibian or amphibian-like fish fossils were transitional. This didn't seem to satisfy kevlar.
Coincidently this week New Scientist have an article on Tiktaalik an animal some refer to as a fishopod as it is such a perfect halfway house between the typical fish and the typical amphibian. I'd recommend that kevlar and anyone else in his position grab a copy of this week's New Scientist and read the article. You can read an abridged version at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-firs...land-discovered.html. Perhaps this will be more to his liking.
Good article, but it does validate my concerns with the evidence that was presented on tetrapods and fishes and which you dismissed. The article goes on to say:
quote:
For all its tetrapod-like features, Tiktaalik is still clearly a fish. For example, its limbs lack the fingers and toes that mark true tetrapods. Shubin now plans to return to Ellesmere Island to search for a fossil even closer to the moment when vertebrates first stepped onto dry land.
So I am a bit further down the road to your way of thinking, but not quite their yet. Especially when it comes to man.
Originally posted by kevlar: Good article, but it does validate my concerns with the evidence that was presented on tetrapods and fishes and which you dismissed. The article goes on to say:
quote:
For all its tetrapod-like features, Tiktaalik is still clearly a fish. For example, its limbs lack the fingers and toes that mark true tetrapods. Shubin now plans to return to Ellesmere Island to search for a fossil even closer to the moment when vertebrates first stepped onto dry land.
So I am a bit further down the road to your way of thinking, but not quite their yet. Especially when it comes to man.
So what you demand is a "missing link" that is ever more close to the next animal along the chain for it to be so similar that there's practically no difference? A sequence of similar links that are almost continuous in their similarity? Surely the chain including man is one of the most convincing examples of evolution. Is the fact that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA not close enough?
Originally posted by kevlar: Good article, but it does validate my concerns with the evidence that was presented on tetrapods and fishes and which you dismissed. The article goes on to say:
quote:
For all its tetrapod-like features, Tiktaalik is still clearly a fish. For example, its limbs lack the fingers and toes that mark true tetrapods. Shubin now plans to return to Ellesmere Island to search for a fossil even closer to the moment when vertebrates first stepped onto dry land.
So I am a bit further down the road to your way of thinking, but not quite their yet. Especially when it comes to man.
So what you demand is a "missing link" that is ever more close to the next animal along the chain for it to be so similar that there's practically no difference? A sequence of similar links that are almost continuous in their similarity? Surely the chain including man is one of the most convincing examples of evolution. Is the fact that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA not close enough?
No. The difference between a humans and chimps' is far greater than the difference between a chimp and a dolphin, when viewing them in intelligence and from a socialogical perspective. DNA are just the building blocks of life, that one percent difference is so incredibly huge that the differences in the species is apparant to everyone.
On a different note. I was hoping someone could explain to me something I thought of the other day? I was thinking about cell mutation and natural selection, which seem to be the foundations of the ToE. Either cell mutation does not happen to every organism , abiogenesis is still happening or a third reason I have not thought of is happening.
Why have single cell organisms not got more complex?
Originally posted by blast99: So what you demand is a "missing link" that is ever more close to the next animal along the chain for it to be so similar that there's practically no difference? A sequence of similar links that are almost continuous in their similarity? Surely the chain including man is one of the most convincing examples of evolution. Is the fact that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA not close enough?
No. The difference between a humans and chimps' is far greater than the difference between a chimp and a dolphin, when viewing them in intelligence and from a socialogical perspective. DNA are just the building blocks of life, that one percent difference is so incredibly huge that the differences in the species is apparant to everyone.
I guess I have to respect your "belief" that DNA are just "building blocks". That's fine, just so long as you're aware that your cherished worldview is based on complete ignorance!
Originally posted by blast99: So what you demand is a "missing link" that is ever more close to the next animal along the chain for it to be so similar that there's practically no difference? A sequence of similar links that are almost continuous in their similarity? Surely the chain including man is one of the most convincing examples of evolution. Is the fact that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA not close enough?
No. The difference between a humans and chimps' is far greater than the difference between a chimp and a dolphin, when viewing them in intelligence and from a socialogical perspective. DNA are just the building blocks of life, that one percent difference is so incredibly huge that the differences in the species is apparant to everyone.
I guess I have to respect your "belief" that DNA are just "building blocks". That's fine, just so long as you're aware that your cherished worldview is based on complete ignorance!
You will agree that a 1% difference in DNA is absolutely huge?
Originally posted by kevlar: Why have single cell organisms not got more complex?
They have. Some modern single-celled organisms are incredibly complex, whereas single-celled organisms from 3 billion years ago would have been much simpler. What I think you are asking though is why are there still single-celled organisms when multicellular ones have evolved. The simple answer is because there are niches for which single celled organisms are the best adapted. This question is often asked in various forms (why are there still fish if amphibians evolved from fish, why are there still apes if humans evolved from apes etc). To help provide a more detailed answer, consider the question "Why are there still Europeans if many Australians are descended from Europeans?" The answer is that not all Europeans emigrated to Australia, some stayed behind. Likewise, only some apes took the human evolution route, most "stayed behind". Only some fish took the amphibian route, most "stayed behind" etc. Likewise only some single-celled organisms took the multicellular route and by doing so they occupied new niches and ceased to compete with the single-celled organisms that they "left behind". But the former niches didn't vanish and those left carried on occupying them, until another small group took another the multicellular route. It is thought that the step from single-celled to multicellular occurred independently on a number of occasions.
Originally posted by kevlar: Why have single cell organisms not got more complex?
They have. Some modern single-celled organisms are incredibly complex, whereas single-celled organisms from 3 billion years ago would have been much simpler. What I think you are asking though is why are there still single-celled organisms when multicellular ones have evolved. The simple answer is because there are niches for which single celled organisms are the best adapted. This question is often asked in various forms (why are there still fish if amphibians evolved from fish, why are there still apes if humans evolved from apes etc). To help provide a more detailed answer, consider the question "Why are there still Europeans if many Australians are descended from Europeans?" The answer is that not all Europeans emigrated to Australia, some stayed behind. Likewise, only some apes took the human evolution route, most "stayed behind". Only some fish took the amphibian route, most "stayed behind" etc. Likewise only some single-celled organisms took the multicellular route and by doing so they occupied new niches and ceased to compete with the single-celled organisms that they "left behind". But the former niches didn't vanish and those left carried on occupying them, until another small group took another the multicellular route. It is thought that the step from single-celled to multicellular occurred independently on a number of occasions.
Wouldn't this only explain the natural selection part of the equation and not the mutation part of it?
You will agree that a 1% difference in DNA is absolutely huge?
In whose language does "1%" mean "absolutely huge" (especially when comparing with the "opposing" 99%)? I know - when the questioner absolutely needs the answer to have "GodDidIt" in it. If 1% is absolutely huge, I wanna see what adjectives you use to describe 99%!!
DNA works in an analogous way to a computer program. It's "written" and acted on a bit like computer code. If you have 2 computer programs that are 99% similar they may well cause different results ('cos it depends on where the 1% difference acts), but if they're 99% similar then in anybody's language they're practically identical. Chimps could have 2 heads and 6 legs but the argument would still hold.
Originally posted by kevlar: Wouldn't this only explain the natural selection part of the equation and not the mutation part of it?
Not at all. It's a case of having the right mutation at the right time. Cell A has a mutation that sends it off down the mutlicellular plant route for example. It thrives as - to paraphrase - in a world of no plants, a poorly adapted plant is king. If cell B has the same mutation a million years later though, it finds itself a poorly adapted plant in a world of well adapted plants. So it dies.
Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
Originally posted by kevlar: Wouldn't this only explain the natural selection part of the equation and not the mutation part of it?
Not at all. It's a case of having the right mutation at the right time. Cell A has a mutation that sends it off down the mutlicellular plant route for example. It thrives as - to paraphrase - in a world of no plants, a poorly adapted plant is king. If cell B has the same mutation a million years later though, it finds itself a poorly adapted plant in a world of well adapted plants. So it dies.
Originally posted by InAbsentia: Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
Again, InAbs go and discuss creationism with someone else who is talking about it. If you can contribute to the discussion do so, but if you are looking to hurl unfounded accusations go and do it somewhere else.
Originally posted by InAbsentia: Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
"Transitional fossils fill the gaps in the fossil record, but nothing has been found to fill the gap between a creationists ears" Me.
Originally posted by InAbsentia: Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
"Transitional fossils fill the gaps in the fossil record, but nothing has been found to fill the gap between a creationists ears" Me.
Always that next step, eh VOG? Arrogance kills what would be an intelligent person. Arrogance is stupidity.
Originally posted by InAbsentia: Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
Again, InAbs go and discuss creationism with someone else who is talking about it. If you can contribute to the discussion do so, but if you are looking to hurl unfounded accusations go and do it somewhere else.
Calm down kev - I wasn't hurling accusations at anyone, unless you count yourself as a creationist. I was merely highlighting how difficult it can be arguing on this subject with someone who wilfully wants to split hairs.
Originally posted by InAbsentia: Creationists are a disingenuous type. They will complain that there is such-and-such a gap in the fossil record with no intermediate form. Then a few years later one will turn up. Then they will claim "ah, but now there are TWO gaps where there used to be one"
"Transitional fossils fill the gaps in the fossil record, but nothing has been found to fill the gap between a creationists ears" Me.
Always that next step, eh VOG? Arrogance kills what would be an intelligent person. Arrogance is stupidity.
Unless it's completely warranted, of course!
Being right and knowing it is a skill. Gimme gimme gimme.
Being wrong and thinking you're right - now there's a problem.
Being right and thinking you're wrong: hmm, personal esteem issue.
Being wrong and thinking you're wrong - well at least you're grounded in reality..
I know - when the questioner absolutely needs the answer to have "GodDidIt" in it.
If you want to speak in these terms then do it with someone else.
D'oh! Hit a nerve huh?
No, you hit a completely unrelated subject to what we were talking about. If you wish to talk about creationism do it on another thread, as I am trying to understand aspects of the ToE. Derailing this thread, which was about "fishopods" is unproductive and trollish.
As you can see, due to unrelated comments this thread has already gone off at a tangent. You complain about God being brought into conversations and then commence to bring God into a science related thread.
Originally posted by kevlar: As you can see, due to unrelated comments this thread has already gone off at a tangent. You complain about God being brought into conversations and then commence to bring God into a science related thread.
So why *do* you think a 1% difference is "absolutely huge" if not for religious reasons?
Originally posted by kevlar: As you can see, due to unrelated comments this thread has already gone off at a tangent. You complain about God being brought into conversations and then commence to bring God into a science related thread.
So why *do* you think a 1% difference is "absolutely huge" if not for religious reasons?
