Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree7Likes
  • 6 Post By drowsy turtle
  • 1 Post By tridimity

Thread: I Cannot Find Any Transitional Forum, Just Punctuated Equilibrium.

  1. #1 I Cannot Find Any Transitional Forum, Just Punctuated Equilibrium. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    I have been looking under the rocks, in the dirt, in the sand, under water, in the museums, in the published literature, and on TV. I cannot find any of the billions of intergenus transitional forms which must have occurred for today's species and genus forms to have come into place.

    Punctuated equilibrium must therefore, be the only means by which we came into being, with the parameters and thermodynamic events of such remaining totally unknown in vitro, in vivo, and in imaginarium. Of course, nobody ever has consulted with any of the little, or large, Extraterrestrial Aliens since they do not exist.

    Actually, there should be some living transitional forms running around as well. Even some human ones. And, there are. Pygmies, shrieking females, occupiers, rock musicians, and politicians. It all makes sense, now.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256


    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    I have been looking under the rocks, in the dirt, in the sand, under water, in the museums, in the published literature, and on TV. I cannot find any of the billions of intergenus transitional forms which must have occurred for today's species and genus forms to have come into place.
    What you mean is, because organisms have to belong to a taxonomical species, there is no such thing as "interspecies". Something which is halfway between two organisms in a clade and cannot be said to belong to either group, must therefore be named as a new species/genus/family etc.

    For instance, there are no "interspecies" organism between therapods and avians because there are species already identified from the fossil record which fit into this transition.

    e.g. Tetragraptus evolved into Monograptus in the Palaeozoic. Didymograptus, Leptograptus, Dicellograptus and Climacograptus are all part of this transition. Each genus (these are all generic names) did not spontaneously turn into the next, there was a gradual transition - these genera represent discrete points in this transition, with the species defined such that a single graptolite at any point in this transition belongs to a single species and a single genus, even though it may differ significantly from other members of the same species.

    Another example you might be able to better visualise, but which obviously doesn't involve speciation, is humans - lactose tolerance in Europe (where dairy has been a major dietary component for centuries) is present in 95% of adults. In African and Asian countries, where dairy was seldom consumed in the past, lactose tolerance is as low as 10%. While not speciation, this is clear divergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Actually, there should be some living transitional forms running around as well.
    There are. You can't identify them as transitional because they're still in transition - hence they're known as 'transitional'. Get it?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    when Darwin did his work on barnacles one of his main bugbears in trying to classify them was to decide at what stage to call something a separate species and when merely a variation
    the reason for this difficulty is because there's a continuous spectrum going from clearly separate species to subspecies to variation of a species + corresponding with lesser to greater extents of hybridisation

    even now existing species are redefined when on closer study it is shown what had been considered to be one species on morphological grounds turn out to be separate, non-interbreeding populations with clear distinctions at the genetic level
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    I have been looking under the rocks, in the dirt, in the sand, under water, in the museums, in the published literature, and on TV. I cannot find any of the billions of intergenus transitional forms which must have occurred for today's species and genus forms to have come into place.

    Punctuated equilibrium must therefore, be the only means by which we came into being

    The transitional forms do exist, as outlined above. Also - even if such transitional forms had never been observed, it is bad practice in science to therefore declare that the thing categorically does not exist. One may be able to estimate the likelihood of an object's existence on the basis of all available evidence (or lack thereof), but in general, one should avoid claiming absolute truth.

    Best wishes,

    T.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    I have been looking under the rocks, in the dirt, in the sand, under water, in the museums, in the published literature, and on TV. I cannot find any of the billions of intergenus transitional forms which must have occurred for today's species and genus forms to have come into place.
    What you mean is, because organisms have to belong to a taxonomical species, there is no such thing as "interspecies". Something which is halfway between two organisms in a clade and cannot be said to belong to either group, must therefore be named as a new species/genus/family etc.

    For instance, there are no "interspecies" organism between therapods and avians because there are species already identified from the fossil record which fit into this transition.

    e.g. Tetragraptus evolved into Monograptus in the Palaeozoic. Didymograptus, Leptograptus, Dicellograptus and Climacograptus are all part of this transition. Each genus (these are all generic names) did not spontaneously turn into the next, there was a gradual transition - these genera represent discrete points in this transition, with the species defined such that a single graptolite at any point in this transition belongs to a single species and a single genus, even though it may differ significantly from other members of the same species.

    Another example you might be able to better visualise, but which obviously doesn't involve speciation, is humans - lactose tolerance in Europe (where dairy has been a major dietary component for centuries) is present in 95% of adults. In African and Asian countries, where dairy was seldom consumed in the past, lactose tolerance is as low as 10%. While not speciation, this is clear divergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Actually, there should be some living transitional forms running around as well.
    There are. You can't identify them as transitional because they're still in transition - hence they're known as 'transitional'. Get it?
    Let's see here how this works out. Okay, here we go .

    "You can't identify them as transitional because they are still in transition- hance they're known as 'transitional'."

    I think I am kind of figuring out how to talk science like a real scientist, here. This is ... fun.

    I am sort of wondering, though ... How can they be called 'transitional' when they can't be identified ... ? Maybe we just need special definitions of some English words, and special presentations of chatty, intuitive ideas, so that things kind of "seem to make sense ..." ... In a scientific way ...

    That's it! Science is all about "helping things seem to make sense!" If we imagine, chat, share, use specially snoggled English words, then we can have "knowledge." And, then we can use that "knowledge" to live bedder!

    I like it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    when Darwin did his work on barnacles one of his main bugbears in trying to classify them was to decide at what stage to call something a separate species and when merely a variation
    the reason for this difficulty is because there's a continuous spectrum going from clearly separate species to subspecies to variation of a species + corresponding with lesser to greater extents of hybridisation

    even now existing species are redefined when on closer study it is shown what had been considered to be one species on morphological grounds turn out to be separate, non-interbreeding populations with clear distinctions at the genetic level
    I am very interested in this "Continuous Spectrum."

    Where can I find it ... ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    I have been looking under the rocks, in the dirt, in the sand, under water, in the museums, in the published literature, and on TV. I cannot find any of the billions of intergenus transitional forms which must have occurred for today's species and genus forms to have come into place.

    Punctuated equilibrium must therefore, be the only means by which we came into being

    The transitional forms do exist, as outlined above. Also - even if such transitional forms had never been observed, it is bad practice in science to therefore declare that the thing categorically does not exist. One may be able to estimate the likelihood of an object's existence on the basis of all available evidence (or lack thereof), but in general, one should avoid claiming absolute truth.

    Best wishes,

    T.
    Yes, I agree it is bad science to expect to see things which exist. It is much better to interpret the data using one's imagination to decide what is real, especially something as large as vertebrates. And looking for observable transitional forms is indeed part of the error of claiming absolute truth.

    Thanks for figuring this out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    when Darwin did his work on barnacles one of his main bugbears in trying to classify them was to decide at what stage to call something a separate species and when merely a variation
    the reason for this difficulty is because there's a continuous spectrum going from clearly separate species to subspecies to variation of a species + corresponding with lesser to greater extents of hybridisation

    even now existing species are redefined when on closer study it is shown what had been considered to be one species on morphological grounds turn out to be separate, non-interbreeding populations with clear distinctions at the genetic level


    I am very interested in this "Continuous Spectrum."

    Where can I find it ... ?
    Darwin published his study of barnacles - try a good university library, or online.

    There are many other such compilations of data on some kinds of birds, fishes, flowering plants, and so forth. The Galapagos finches are famous, and there is a pop science book on them widely available, but you may find the circumpolar gulls ("ring species") or trans-American goldenrods, canids, oaks, etc, or African (Lake Victoria and nearby) cichlids, various lepidoptera (start with the Helioconids) or some other of the thousands of examples, more compatible.

    Nothing in the realm of knowledge is compatible with willful ignorance, of course. So you may not wish to waste your time actually looking things up and stuff like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    when Darwin did his work on barnacles one of his main bugbears in trying to classify them was to decide at what stage to call something a separate species and when merely a variation
    the reason for this difficulty is because there's a continuous spectrum going from clearly separate species to subspecies to variation of a species + corresponding with lesser to greater extents of hybridisation

    even now existing species are redefined when on closer study it is shown what had been considered to be one species on morphological grounds turn out to be separate, non-interbreeding populations with clear distinctions at the genetic level


    I am very interested in this "Continuous Spectrum."

    Where can I find it ... ?
    Darwin published his study of barnacles - try a good university library, or online.

    There are many other such compilations of data on some kinds of birds, fishes, flowering plants, and so forth. The Galapagos finches are famous, and there is a pop science book on them widely available, but you may find the circumpolar gulls ("ring species") or trans-American goldenrods, canids, oaks, etc, or African (Lake Victoria and nearby) cichlids, various lepidoptera (start with the Helioconids) or some other of the thousands of examples, more compatible.

    Nothing in the realm of knowledge is compatible with willful ignorance, of course. So you may not wish to waste your time actually looking things up and stuff like that.
    Yes, being willfully knowledgeable is very important. But being willfully deluded is very sad, isn't it?

    Have you noticed that the transitional forms identified today and the forms described by Darwin within a "Continuous Spectrum" are all still of the same genus as all other forms within their transitional group and within their "Continuous Spectrum?"

    In other words for the sake of willfully seeing knowledge here, let us verify that no forms have been identified which show the actual change from one genus to another. And, I am speaking of genus appearances here instead of species appearances because the parameters of "species" have been so refined and contrived such that the smallest little variation in a form is now being called "a new species."

    With no forms existing which show a change in genus, that is, no offspring of any meiotic reproduction are ever seen as being a new genus when compared to their parents, we have to conclude that new genus forms appear only within scientist's imaginations.

    This is good to know. I can stop looking for new genus forms and for transitional forms, because all we need to do is:

    1.) Talk about these things within the scientific realm using chatty scientific terms, always concluding in the published literature about how the author says things "seem to be.".
    2.) Find new ways to imagine the existence of what must be there.
    3.) Feel confident that someone, somewhere, some day will put it all together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joReba
    In other words for the sake of willfully seeing knowledge here, let us verify that no forms have been identified which show the actual change from one genus to another.
    That's false, as you can easily verify by recourse to the many sources I mentioned.

    Try it.

    First, though, you need to brush up on your basic biology - this:
    With no forms existing which show a change in genus, that is, no offspring of any meiotic reproduction are ever seen as being a new genus when compared to their parents,
    is a serious gap in your education. You apparently have no idea how animals genetically distant enough to be classified in different genuses would have evolved according to the standard theory.

    It also marks a fundamental confusion in your argument - your scenario there would produce genuses without transitional forms, exactly the absence you claim exists and Darwinian theory denies, and so the lack of evidence for it is evidence against your descriptions and assertions, and in favor of Darwinian theory.
    Last edited by iceaura; January 10th, 2012 at 02:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    I am very interested in this "Continuous Spectrum."

    Where can I find it ... ?
    sarcasm doesn't become you - open your eyes and you will see
    can you honestly say you have studied an animal group in detail to verify the veracity of my statement ? if not, then you're just producing hot air
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Yes, I agree it is bad science to expect to see things which exist. It is much better to interpret the data using one's imagination to decide what is real, especially something as large as vertebrates. And looking for observable transitional forms is indeed part of the error of claiming absolute truth.

    Thanks for figuring this out.


    Okay, you have - I suspect purposefully - grossly fabricated this alleged statement of mine, that 'it is bad science to expect to see things which exist.' What I was actually alluding to, was as follows (let me state it clearly for you): it is bad scientific practice to categorically refute the existence of a thing which has never previously been observed. Things which would fall into this category would include: fairies and the Higgs boson.

    We have virtually no reason to believe in the existence of fairies, but far more reason to believe in the existence of the Higgs boson. This is what I was trying to explain with regards estimating the probability of the existence of things. Nevertheless, science would not categorically rule out the existence of fairies formally (though for all everyday conveniences, we may assume that they do not exist) since it is possible that in the future fairies will be oberved. This would refute the Null hypothesis that 'fairies do not exist' and therefore constitute proof of their existence.

    In general - if you so detest science, just don't become a scientist. But don't worry, I don't think you're in any danger of that
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by joReba
    In other words for the sake of willfully seeing knowledge here, let us verify that no forms have been identified which show the actual change from one genus to another.
    That's false, as you can easily verify by recourse to the many sources I mentioned.

    Try it.

    First, though, you need to brush up on your basic biology - this:
    With no forms existing which show a change in genus, that is, no offspring of any meiotic reproduction are ever seen as being a new genus when compared to their parents,
    is a serious gap in your education. You apparently have no idea how animals genetically distant enough to be classified in different genuses would have evolved according to the standard theory.

    It also marks a fundamental confusion in your argument - your scenario there would produce genuses without transitional forms, exactly the absence you claim exists and Darwinian theory denies, and so the lack of evidence for it is evidence against your descriptions and assertions, and in favor of Darwinian theory.
    Have you finished displaying your basic skills within personal mentation?

    "Different genuses [which] would have evolved according to the standard theory." That summarizes the issue here. What you call "would have" you and others are trying to call fact. Do you understand what I just said to you?

    There is no "would have" which can be seen, today. It is all so easily imaginary, teetering on the rocks of a few fossils. BTW, those multimillion year old fossils still have recoverable soft tissues in them in spite of their thorough mineralization without being disturbed by untold geologic upheavals while that slow, steady process tok place. It is all so nice and simple to think about, long, ... long ago ... in the ... distant ... past ...

    Have you ever dissected an organ or organelle which was in the process of evolving? That is, have you, or any other investigator, ever seen a nonpathologically formed, functional, and genetically determined organ variant which is fully functional and is on its way to becoming a evolutionarily superior organ?

    Does a variant function ever change genomic information? Or, does random allele change always drive morphogenic evolution, with the lucky ones surviving? Remember, the survivors must come about by having one of their parents meiotic cells undergo the random change when in a stem cell form, rather than the parent's merely having mitotic changes from UV radiation at other places on their body. Do you know how easily viable sperm become nonmotile when damaged in any manner?

    Share more of your ideas with me. Share your best reactions, and your best intuitve notions as they relate to science.

    Thanks, again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    Yes, I agree it is bad science to expect to see things which exist. It is much better to interpret the data using one's imagination to decide what is real, especially something as large as vertebrates. And looking for observable transitional forms is indeed part of the error of claiming absolute truth.

    Thanks for figuring this out.


    Okay, you have - I suspect purposefully - grossly fabricated this alleged statement of mine, that 'it is bad science to expect to see things which exist.' What I was actually alluding to, was as follows (let me state it clearly for you): it is bad scientific practice to categorically refute the existence of a thing which has never previously been observed. Things which would fall into this category would include: fairies and the Higgs boson.

    We have virtually no reason to believe in the existence of fairies, but far more reason to believe in the existence of the Higgs boson. This is what I was trying to explain with regards estimating the probability of the existence of things. Nevertheless, science would not categorically rule out the existence of fairies formally (though for all everyday conveniences, we may assume that they do not exist) since it is possible that in the future fairies will be oberved. This would refute the Null hypothesis that 'fairies do not exist' and therefore constitute proof of their existence.

    In general - if you so detest science, just don't become a scientist. But don't worry, I don't think you're in any danger of that
    So, you think (read: "feel" Lol.) that "possibility thinking" should be a foundation for science? Religion does that. I guess you need religion wrapped up to look like Science.

    And, does not Science relate to ... "every day conveniences?" ... Remember, every every day convenience you have in your apartment and on your persthon comes from science. You cannot deny that.
    Last edited by JoReba; January 10th, 2012 at 04:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Let's see here how this works out. Okay, here we go .

    "You can't identify them as transitional because they are still in transition- hance they're known as 'transitional'."

    I think I am kind of figuring out how to talk science like a real scientist, here. This is ... fun.

    I am sort of wondering, though ... How can they be called 'transitional' when they can't be identified ... ? Maybe we just need special definitions of some English words, and special presentations of chatty, intuitive ideas, so that things kind of "seem to make sense ..." ... In a scientific way ...

    That's it! Science is all about "helping things seem to make sense!" If we imagine, chat, share, use specially snoggled English words, then we can have "knowledge." And, then we can use that "knowledge" to live bedder!
    Well I'm glad you concentrated on my one grammatical mistake and not on my post as a whole. That really speaks of intellectual honesty.

    In case you're genuinely interested, what I meant was that you can't say what modern-day organisms are a transition to, only what we're in transition from, and the fact that we're still changing.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Let's see here how this works out. Okay, here we go .

    "You can't identify them as transitional because they are still in transition- hance they're known as 'transitional'."

    I think I am kind of figuring out how to talk science like a real scientist, here. This is ... fun.

    I am sort of wondering, though ... How can they be called 'transitional' when they can't be identified ... ? Maybe we just need special definitions of some English words, and special presentations of chatty, intuitive ideas, so that things kind of "seem to make sense ..." ... In a scientific way ...

    That's it! Science is all about "helping things seem to make sense!" If we imagine, chat, share, use specially snoggled English words, then we can have "knowledge." And, then we can use that "knowledge" to live bedder!
    Well I'm glad you concentrated on my one grammatical mistake and not on my post as a whole. That really speaks of intellectual honesty.

    In case you're genuinely interested, what I meant was that you can't say what modern-day organisms are a transition to, only what we're in transition from, and the fact that we're still changing.
    Some new information here, for you, Precious: People, including myself, can indeed "say" anything they choose.

    What matters is what can be "shown" both materially and predictably. That is Science. Science is not chatting about what you want things to be. That is Religion, Politics, and Psychology. You still have not shown where any human organs or characteristic human functions "evolved" from, or as you said, are "in transition from." You have only speculated on that.

    Share more of your views and ideas. I might change my thinking if you say the right things with the right emphasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    "Different genuses [which] would have evolved according to the standard theory." That summarizes the issue here. What you call "would have" you and others are trying to call fact. Do you understand what I just said to you?
    Proof by exhaustion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    There is no "would have" which can be seen, today. It is all so easily imaginary, teetering on the rocks of a few fossils.
    You don't need fossils to find evidence for evolution. Darwin certainly didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    BTW, those multimillion year old fossils still have recoverable soft tissues in them in spite of their thorough mineralization without being disturbed by untold geologic upheavals while that slow, steady process tok place. It is all so nice and simple to think about, long, ... long ago ... in the ... distant ... past ...
    As I asked before, is there any real scientific reason you can think of why cellular structures couldn't be preserved for 65 million years? Just because it hasn't been found before, doesn't make it impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Have you ever dissected an organ or organelle which was in the process of evolving?That is, have you, or any other investigator, ever seen a nonpathologically formed, functional, and genetically determined organ variant which is fully functional and is on its way to becoming a evolutionarily superior organ?
    Are you expecting someone to suddenly and spontaneously have a liver made of platinum or something? That would completely disprove evolution. What we expect is gradual change - e.g. emergent adult lactose tolerance in Europe, compared to widespread lactose intolerance in Africa and Asia.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Does a variant function ever change genomic information? Or, does random allele change always drive morphogenic evolution, with the lucky ones surviving? Remember, the survivors must come about by having one of their parents meiotic cells undergo the random change when in a stem cell form, rather than the parent's merely having mitotic changes from UV radiation at other places on their body. Do you know how easily viable sperm become nonmotile when damaged in any manner?
    A hereditary mutation occurs when the mutation is in gametes, or gamete-bearing cells. The mechanism by which gametes are produced (meiosis) actually encourages mutations.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Some new information here, for you, Precious: People, including myself, can indeed "say" anything they choose.
    Again, it's encouraging for your credibility to see that you're more concerned with delivery than content.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    You still have not shown where any human organs or characteristic human functions "evolved" from, or as you said, are "in transition from." You have only speculated on that.
    You never asked.

    It's a shame there's no information available from a google search..... OH WAIT THERE'S LOADS!
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    There is no "would have" which can be seen, today.
    We have listed for you many places for you to look and see. I have also recommended, quite seriously, that you undertake at least a brief course of study to familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of standard evolutionary theory. You are badly confused in the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    Have you ever dissected an organ or organelle which was in the process of evolving?
    No organelle or organ has ever been in the process of evolving, according to standard Darwinian theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    That is, have you, or any other investigator, ever seen a nonpathologically formed, functional, and genetically determined organ variant which is fully functional and is on its way to becoming a evolutionarily superior organ?
    No. All we have seen is great and consistently inherited variety in the internal and external organs of every animal on earth, available for selection if it so happens. Darwinian evolution, not your misconceptions, is what we see evidence for.
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    Does a variant function ever change genomic information?
    The jury is out. Lamarckian evolution has been discredited, thoroughly, but the field of "epigenetics" is fairly new. It is not necessary for Darwinian evolution, and if too frequent or fundamental would interfere with Darwinian evolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by joreba
    Or, does random allele change always drive morphogenic evolution, with the lucky ones surviving?
    The change does not have to be random or in an allele, and selection does not have to be a matter of luck, and morphogenic is not the word you want. Otherwise, you approach the basic insight. More study, more careful reasoning than has appeared above, is in front of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I have lurked on a couple of creationists sites. The moderators there would have banned an evolutionist for the tone of their posts if they were 1/4 as snide and aggresive as JoReba's. It is a testament to the tolerance of scientists and those of a scientific bent that JoReba is afforded the respect (undeserved) to continue spouting his willful ignorance and dogmatic vitriol on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    We are only transitional species if the environment changes and we can easily adapt by the ability of our genetic code to respond to those changes by changing its code. We most likely will not look like we do now due to those changes but we can say we once were in a transitional stage during that time frame. If we did not adapt and we became extinct, no transition would take place and that would be the end of our species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Transitional and Oppositional States Account for All
    By questor in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 03:25 PM
  2. Punctuated Equilibrium
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 12:46 PM
  3. How did you find this forum?
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 12:14 AM
  4. How did you find this forum?
    By william in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 31st, 2006, 11:00 AM
  5. Punctuated and Gradual
    By Secret_Agent_Man in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 18th, 2006, 07:00 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •