(September 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The fossil record is a tiny amount of evidence compared to genetic evidence anyway.

Creationists never study the evidence and will accept Evolution no matter how many fossils we find.

Find all the transitional fossils for every single species is kind've like asking for a picture of every single second of your life.

I once heard a Creationist claim that Scientists don't know what causes wind. So therefore we must know nothing of everything else discovered. Luckily I knew what caused wind and told them so therefore we do know about Evolution.

(September 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: "There is a gap!" the creationists cry.

Again with the creationists junk? Why do you keep bringing those kooks up?? I have absolutely zero interest in what creationists think and I prefer not be confused with them. Okay?

I seem to have made the mistake of using the term "gap" with the sudden appearance in complex life forms. I was not referring to the incompleteness of the fossil record when I was speaking of a gap in the fossil record. I can see how that can be confusing to you. My mistake.

Let me quote what this book I'm reading on evolution has to say about all of this

Quote:Darwin wondered where to find transitional life forms (consider them the in-between-this-and-that forms). Although we've had more success in finding transitional life forms, today scientists still feel his pain. They are better at knowing where to look and they have more people looking, but they still struggle to find them.

Scientists hypothesize that evolution doesn't occur at a constant rate: It can occur in bursts seperated by long periods when not much happens. If transitional was brief, the chance that such forms would have been fossilized is even more dicey.

I'm not asserting that lack of finds of fossils is any mystery at all. I was thinking about rates of evolution. I mistook that phenomena with the common use of "gap" in the fossil record. I won't make that mistake again. So I would appreciate it if people would get off this creationsists kick. I'm not a creationist and have no interest in what their opinions/arguements are. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about them.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:56 pm)Pete Wrote:

(September 2, 2008 at 3:25 pm)solidsquid Wrote: In light of that, yes, we do and will see "gaps" (but not for the reason many evolution opponents claim) in the fossil record - some are there because specimens haven't been found yet. Some are there possibly from the result of lack of fossilization of specimens and some are there because there really isn't a gap to fill, sometimes things change suddenly.

First off I'm not an opponent of evolution so I could care less about what they think and am not concerned with what their reasoning is. So you don't have to bother mentioning that kind of thing. Okay?

As far as lack of fossilization of specimens; Sorry, while you may be right, I don't find your arguement very convincing. I'm not even sure that it address what punctuated equilibrium is about. I just picked up a book on Evolution and it addresses this question. The author writes

Quote:Scientists hypothesize that evolution doesn't occur at a constant rate: It can occur in bursts seperated by long periods when not much happens. If transitional was brief, the chance that such forms would have been fossilized is even more dicey.

I fully understand that fossilization is an extremely rare thing so don't get me wrong. In fact I wouldn't have even thought twice about the gap in the fossil record if it didn't come as such a supprise to evolutionists such as Gould. However, from what I hear, Gould was a genius. As such he was smart enough to take these things into consideration before he hypothesized punctuated equilibrium. I feel very comfortable that Gould was smart enough to consider all the things that one might object to regarding punctuated equilibrium. To suggest that he didn't consider the most obvious explanation is not doing him, or other evolutionary scientists, justice.

Pete

1. I never said you were an evolution opponent.

2. My post did not attempt to dismiss Gould and Eldredge's PE, the evidence I posted actually supports it and PG.

3. I am fully aware of PE, what it is and it's evolutionary implications.

(September 7, 2008 at 5:30 pm)Pete Wrote: Again with the creationists junk? Why do you keep bringing those kooks up?? I have absolutely zero interest in what creationists think and I prefer not be confused with them. Okay?

I seem to have made the mistake of using the term "gap" with the sudden appearance in complex life forms. I was not referring to the incompleteness of the fossil record when I was speaking of a gap in the fossil record. I can see how that can be confusing to you. My mistake.

You brought up the gaps argument. It is an argument usually associated with creationists, and which you probably got off a creationist without knowing it. No evolutionary biologist would have ever told you "we are baffled by the gaps in the fossil record". I've spoken with many of them, and they all explain it perfectly.

Quote:Let me quote what this book I'm reading on evolution has to say about all of this

Quote:Darwin wondered where to find transitional life forms (consider them the in-between-this-and-that forms). Although we've had more success in finding transitional life forms, today scientists still feel his pain. They are better at knowing where to look and they have more people looking, but they still struggle to find them.

Scientists hypothesize that evolution doesn't occur at a constant rate: It can occur in bursts seperated by long periods when not much happens. If transitional was brief, the chance that such forms would have been fossilized is even more dicey.

I'm not asserting that lack of finds of fossils is any mystery at all. I was thinking about rates of evolution. I mistook that phenomena with the common use of "gap" in the fossil record. I won't make that mistake again. So I would appreciate it if people would get off this creationsists kick. I'm not a creationist and have no interest in what their opinions/arguements are. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about them.

Well firstly that book doesn't sound very scientific at all. Every single fossil is a transitional form, so every single fossil found is one. There is no "struggle" to find any of them...

Anyway, you are still wrong when you assert "Gaps in fossil beds are expected. Not gaps in the fossil record.". We know from experience that gaps in the fossil record are expected, because we have a load of them. Fossilization requires a load of factors to be right, the most important being that the animal isn't disturbed much when it dies. If an animal dies and is ripped apart by a pack of wolves and devoured, it won't be much use to scientists even if a few of the remains are fossilized.

As for the creationist thing, I apologize, but when you stop bringing up old and used creationist arguments (even if you don't mean to) we'll stop pointing them out.

From Freeman and Herron (2004):

Quote:One of the prominent patterns in the history of life is that new morphospecies appear in the fossil record suddenly and then persist for millions of years without apparent change. In many cases, evolutionary innovations seem to arise at the same time as new species. As a result, morphological evolution in some groups seems to consist of long periods of stasis that are occasionally punctuated by speciation events that appear instantaneously in geological time. Gradual series of transitional forms do occur, but in some groups they are relatively rare.

Darwin (1859) was well aware of these observations and considered them a problem for his theory. Because his ideas were presented in opposition to the Theory of Special Creation, which predicts the instantaneous creation of new forms, Darwin repeatedly emphasized the gradual nature of evolution by natural selection. He attributed the sudden appearance of new taxa to the incompleteness of the fossil record and predicted that as specimen collections grew, the apparent gaps between fossil forms caused by stasis (and punctuated by sudden jumps) would be filled in by forms showing gradual transitions between morphospecies. For a century thereafter, most paleontologists followed his lead.

In 1972, however, Niled Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould broke with tradition by claiming that stasis is a real pattern in the fossil record and that most morphological change occurs during speciation. They called their proposal the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The theory and its implications were hotly debated for 20 years, but both proponents and critics now agree that most of the disagreements stemmed from differences in time scales. Biologists routinely observe changes in morphology within and between populations over tens or hundreds of years and document gradual change. But if a paleontologist studied morphological change in the same groups over a million-year interval, the change would appear large and sudden.

And a very important part in relation to what I mentioned in an earlier post, they quote Erwin and Anstey:

Quote:Erwin and Anstey's conclusion was that "paleontological evidence overwhelmingly supports a view that speciation is sometimes gradual and sometimes punctuated, and that no one mode characterizes this very complicated process in the history of life". Furthermore, Erwin and Anstey noted that a quarter of the studies reported a third pattern: gradulism and stasis.

Erwin, D. & Anstey, R. (1995). Speciation in the fossil record. In D. H. Erwin and R. L. Anstey (Eds.). New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. New York: Columbia University Press.

Freeman, S. & Herron, J. (2004). Evolutionary Analysis. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

(September 7, 2008 at 6:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You brought up the gaps argument.

And I said it was a mistake. Are we done with it yet or do you wish to talk about my mistake some more?

Quote:As for the creationist thing, I apologize, but when you stop bringing up old and used creationist arguments (even if you don't mean to) we'll stop pointing them out.

Apology accepted.

I'm not an evolutionist. I don't claim to be one. I know the basics. Therefore I'm sure I'll make errors in the future. If the errors I make are the same as the errors that a creationists makes then I'm not interested in since an error is an error. For that reason I will no longer respond to any post which contains the word "creationist." Thanks.

I think we may gotten off on the wrong foot. If we have come across as jumping on you, it wasn't our intention. If you'd like to discuss aspects of this topic further I'd be happy to and I promise not to use the "c" word.

(September 7, 2008 at 7:42 pm)Pete Wrote: I'm not an evolutionist. I don't claim to be one. I know the basics. Therefore I'm sure I'll make errors in the future. If the errors I make are the same as the errors that a creationists makes then I'm not interested in since an error is an error. For that reason I will no longer respond to any post which contains the word "creationist." Thanks.

You just made a mistake. It's the fourth word in that quote.

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'

You don't call someone an Atomic-ist or Gravitational-ist or a relativity-ist etc.

I'm nit picking but us Darwinists need to get rid of these moronic labels! lol hahahaha

(September 7, 2008 at 9:20 pm)solidsquid Wrote: I think we may gotten off on the wrong foot. If we have come across as jumping on you, it wasn't our intention. If you'd like to discuss aspects of this topic further I'd be happy to and I promise not to use the "c" word.

Thank you. I greatly appreciate that.

I have some work to do tonight so let's table this for now and I'll get to you later.

(September 7, 2008 at 7:42 pm)Pete Wrote: If the errors I make are the same as the errors that a creationists makes then I'm not interested in since an error is an error.

So if we point out an error you make in Evolutionary theory you will simply ignore it? Please explain this a bit more since if that is the case I don't want to discuss anything with an attitude like that.