universal values?

[Knotted]

No it isn't but clearly it's over your head. If there are few transitionals and they can be classed then - no new phyla.

Fossils of species level transitionals?

For someone who knows what they are talking about you use very vague terms.

 

[dilute micro]

Dm, have a read of this. Pay particular attention to the section entitled What Eldredge and Gould did not say. In particular:

And? The fossil record (stasis + sudden appearance & disappearance) says otherwise.

So we're back to pe.

 

[Knotted]

And? The fossil record (stasis + sudden appearance & disappearance) says otherwise.

So we're back to pe.

Well take that up with Niles Eldredge. I would say take it up with Stephen Gould if he were alive.

 

[dilute micro]

Fossils of species level transitionals?

For someone who knows what they are talking about you use very vague terms.

Actually there are very few species level transitionals....considering all the species that have lived. What we do see are a few examples out of millions where, as Gould said, an animal might change morphologically but normally stay within their classification - so hardly any transitional body types. Even the ones known are questionable as to what they are. But still, for what it's worth they count as transitionals.

 

[Knotted]

Actually there are very few species level transitionals....considering all the species that have lived. What we do see are a few examples out of millions where, as Gould said, an animal might change morphologically but normally stay within their classification - so hardly any transitional body types. Even the ones known are questionable as to what they are. But still, for what it's worth they count as transitionals.

So? Do you need more examples? How many do you need? What are you trying to test ie. which part of evolution by natural selection? Gradualism? Natural selection? Common ancestry? Where are you going with this?

Can you possibly string an argument together?

 

[dilute micro]

What on earth is "darwinistic evolution"? What on earth is "pe evolution". Don't pretend you know what you are talking about when you use such ridiculous terms.

The difference explained in the fact that since darwin's theory doesn't account for what we see in the fossil record - pe had to serve as an explanation. It's funny that in order to spare Darwinian evolution any chance of being incorrect on something it necessitates the denial of pe - which was authored to make up for where Darwin's theory was wrong.

 

[Knotted]

But what is "Darwinian evolution"?

 

[IMR]

Even the ones known are questionable as to what they are. But still, for what it's worth they count as transitionals.

In what sense are they questionable?

 

[dilute micro]

But what is "Darwinian evolution"?

You'll need to do a lot of reading.

 

[Knotted]

What do you mean by "Darwinian evolution"?

 

[dilute micro]

In what sense are they questionable?

From fossils it's hard to know the complete biology of an animal.

 

[IMR]

From fossils it's hard to know the complete biology of an animal.

For sure. Sometimes it's hard to decide whether animals today belong in separate species, separate subspecies, or just form a cline of variation within a species. Pygmy chimpanzees iirc used to be classed as a subspecies of Pan troglodytes, now they enjoy species status in their own right: Pan paniscus. Neantherthals were long considered a seperate species within the genus Homo, now general agreement seems to be that they're an H. sapiens subspecies, especially since evidence has emerged of introgression of Neanderthal genes into anatomically modern humans in Europe and elsewhere.

Questionability of species boundaries in the fossil record could go both ways though.

 

[Knotted]

Ultimately every fossil is a transitional form.

 

[dilute micro]

What do you mean by "Darwinian evolution"?

Exactly what Darwin said it was. And held to that - no smoke and mirrors and no duct-taped stories of 'evolution'.

 

[Knotted]

Exactly what Darwin said it was. And held to that - no smoke and mirrors and no duct-taped stories of 'evolution'.

So basically, "Darwinian evolution"=all the things Darwin ever said about evolution.

OK. Case closed then. "Darwinian evolution" has been rejected by evolutionary biologists. For example nobody now accepts Darwin's ideas on heredity.

 

[dilute micro]

Ultimately every fossil is a transitional form.

Hell, you don't even need a PhD in paleontology or biology. Why don't you just write a treatise against all these scientists that disagree with the idea that every fossil is a transitional form.

 

[Knotted]

Hell, you don't even need a PhD in paleontology or biology. Why don't you just write a treatise against all these scientists that disagree with the idea that every fossil is a transitional form.

Who disagrees?

 

[dilute micro]

Questionability of species boundaries in the fossil record could go both ways though.

Yes it can. You can bet if a fossil could be shown to be leaving one group of phyla it would be.

 

[Knotted]

Yes it can. You can bet if a fossil could be shown to be leaving one group of phyla it would be.

I've read that sentence five or six times and I can't make any sense of it. Fossils don't leave anything, they are just fossils. What's a "group of phyla"? A kingdom?

So you are talking about a fossil leaving the animal kingdom and joining the plant kingdom?

I'd give up if I were you.

 

[dilute micro]

Who disagrees?

Gould, Eldredge, Raup, Darwin. All of these remarked that the fossil record was static. I think you don't understand the meaning of transitional form.

 

[Knotted]

Gould, Eldredge, Raup, Darwin. All of these remarked that the fossil record was static. I think you don't understand the meaning of transitional form.

But you have this terrible track record of failing to understand what Gould, Eldredge, Raup and Darwin actually thought. So you now guess that they would disagree with me. Well I suspect that it's a bad guess.

 

[dilute micro]

I've read that sentence five or six times and I can't make any sense of it. Fossils don't leave anything, they are just fossils. What's a "group of phyla"? A kingdom?

So you are talking about a fossil leaving the animal kingdom and joining the plant kingdom?

I'd give up if I were you.

No not joining the plant kingdom.

Porifera, Cnidaria, Arthropoda, Platyhelminthes, Nemotoda, Annelida, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Chordata (this is the phylum you're in Knotted)

 

[IMR]

No not joining the plant kingdom.

Porifera, Cnidaria, Arthropoda, Platyhelminthes, Nemotoda, Annelida, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Chordata (this is the phylum you're in Knotted)

Now don't tell me you knew those off by heart, because I don't.

 

[dilute micro]

Now don't tell me you knew those off by heart, because I don't.

lol some of them not all of them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Gould, Eldredge, Raup, Darwin. All of these remarked that the fossil record was static. I think you don't understand the meaning of transitional form.

Could you expand on that?

I have no idea what 'the fossil record was static' means.

Everyone would agree that the fossil record is necessarily incomplete, infuriatingly so, but what does 'static' mean in this context? Each fossil is a record of a particular life form at a particular moment in history, but what else do you mean by static? What is the significance of that statement?

 

[dilute micro]

I have no idea what 'the fossil record was static' means.

The fossil record doesn't show forms transforming into other forms. It shows animals appearing all of a sudden and with body structures that fall into one of 36 phyla (the taxonomic group for distinguishing body types). The animals that they find not only appear suddenly "fully formed" phylum-wise, but stay that way throughout their fossil record evolving only a little, like getting larger or whatever, but whose body structure stays the same the whole time.

It's significant because Darwin's theory says it shouldn't be like that at all. Fossils should show transformation from one body type to another since there would have had to been so many intermediate animals and over a long period of time and the transformation would be so gradual. Darwin said that of all the problems with his theory this was the worst. He blamed the situation with the fossils on not having searched enough fossil beds and on the fossil record being extremely imperfect. But as Gould and others have admitted - these excuses don't hold up anymore. This inspired Gould and Eldredge to come up with punctuated equilibrium. pe says all the transitional forms are rapidly evolving in a separate location than the main population (parent species - whose fossils we do see). And for these 2 reasons we shouldn't expect to see transitional forms.

 

[Knotted]

You keep confusing phyla with species. Punctuated equilibria is not about the formation of new phyla. I've shown you that the "fully formed" quote was about species not phyla. You've just stuck your fingers in your ears and sung "la la la la".

 

[dilute micro]

You keep confusing phyla with species. Punctuated equilibria is not about the formation of new phyla. I've shown you that the "fully formed" quote was about species not phyla. You've just stuck your fingers in your ears and sung "la la la la".

Knotted you simply don't know what you're talking about - and you haven't the whole time. You don't even understand the basics.

You're confused because scientists will sometimes use "species" in a generic sense - especially when talking to each other. When Gould said, "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change." he wasn't talking about animals not evolving at all. He was talking about the higher taxa (phyla). When Raup said, "Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descended pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups." That for you should have been a clue.

You keep proving you're not familiar with any of this stuff at all. You should know what phya are. That's basic biology. You're lost.

Punctuated equilibrium has to be about formation of new body types if it's the way things evolved - by 'evidence' of there being no transitional fossils, remember. Otherwise we'd see phylum-transition fossils. So if new body types don't come about by pe then they must come about by some other way. What way is that knotted? Why can't pe affect change no greater than the little stuff?

 

[Knotted]

Knotted you simply don't know what you're talking about - and you haven't the whole time. You don't even understand the basics.

You're confused because scientists will sometimes use "species" in a generic sense - especially when talking to each other. When Gould said, "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change." he wasn't talking about animals not evolving at all. He was talking about the higher taxa (phyla). When Raup said, "Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descended pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups." That for you should have been a clue.

Could you please quote in full. Why do you think that Gould was talking about higher taxa?

You keep proving you're not familiar with any of this stuff at all. You should know what phya are. That's basic biology. You're lost.

Punctuated equilibrium has to be about formation of new body types if it's the way things evolved - by 'evidence' of there being no transitional fossils, remember. Otherwise we'd see phylum-transition fossils. So if new body types don't come about by pe then they must come about by some other way. What way is that knotted? Why can't pe affect change no greater than the little stuff?

Punctuated equilibrium simply isn't about the formation of new body types (phyla).

In any case, there are transitional fossils between phyla. Look it up. Lobopods are intermediates between anthropods and worms, for example.

 

[dilute micro]

Could you please quote in full. Why do you think that Gould was talking about higher taxa?



Punctuated equilibrium simply isn't about the formation of new body types (phyla).

In any case, there are transitional fossils between phyla. Look it up. Lobopods are intermediates between anthropods and worms, for example.

Because 1. Gould was aware that species (in it's strictest definition ...genus, species) do change, as he noted and described. And 2. if he didn't then he's saying species don't evolve.

Punctuated equilibrium has to be about forming new body types. You can keep repeating to yourself otherwise but you're wasting time that you could be spending learning basic biology.

Those Cambrian "intermediates" are are part of a bunch of animals that are each most likely members of their own unique phyla. If you're looking for missing links Archaeopteryx is at this point is still the best bet. If you could go back in time - catch one and bring it back - it could be dissected and we could answer the question of whether it's a bird variant or a true intermediate.