(December 19, 2016 at 12:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Road runner said the below but I seem to have deleted his name. (My bad)
Quote:I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain. I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles). I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast. However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.
The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of). You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited. Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?
Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it). I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it. That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply). The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened. But the question is... why is this a fact?
The thing is I was doing is called "a lie to children" it's a very simplified version of events that bears very little in common with the actuality but gives the gist.
I apologise if I misunderstood your level of comprehension, but was basing my explanation on the level of knowledge you display here, which as far as I can tell is as near to zero as detectable.
I get that a lot here, often before I say much of anything. I also don't get into much detail, with those who just want to insult, and not support their positions.
Quote:So here is a detailed example of how small incremental changes led to a major change over time.
It is the change of fish jaws to become the ear bones in mammals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles
Thanks for the link, I'm sure I've seen this before, but probably glossed over it. Where possible, I think if we started in this way, and there was more of this, things may be different. In looking it up, I did find some places that present it better. Although the two best; their drawings don't seem to quite match up which I find odd. It may be that they are leaving things out, and that they do match, but present different points. It just seems odd to omit data that could make the case stronger.
I normally hate drawings as evidence, but in this instance, they seem reasonable. There is a couple of places, that question the usefuleness of the intermediates to justify the movement (impedance matching) but nothing very detailed or which I think makes it questionable on the evolutionary standpoint. It also doesn't seem too bad in assuming evolution to demonstrate it or have to make use of just so stories.
There is some convergence (between 2-6) depending on the article, with most seem to be agreeing on 3 as fairly certain. However in this instance, I don't find that convergence, weakens the arguments for common descent (although may raise some other interesting questions).
I'm still looking into it, and half expect to find some incongruency, or left out information, that some will try to wash over, but so far there isn't much arguemnet.
Thanks
