| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2007 03:02:16 PM · #576 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
nd how does this prove that man evolved from fish? |
*Slaps forehead* |
I'm glad I'm not the only one who witnessed that spectacular corruption of logic. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:05:37 PM · #577 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Unlike the evidence that suggests that all life began in the sea, therefore man is related to and evolved from fish. |
You mean the fact that sedimentary layers deposited first are both older and beneath those deposited later, and that beyond a certain age/layer no fossils of land animals whatsoever are found anywhere in the world, yet many forms of aquatic life continue to appear in layers much older/deeper? Can you offer a better explanation? |
However, as you imply, there is no actual evidenciary link that proves man evolved from fish. Only that it hasn't been discovered yet.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:06:19 PM · #578 |
Originally posted by Flash:
How does the attack on my evidence proove that man has evolved from fish? |
The same way that Jonnie Cochran's criticism of the O.J. Simpson evidence proves that porcupines are allergic to bananas. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:11:49 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Hope you are gaining some sense. For several posts now I have specifically equated the circumstantial evidence of scriptural events with the "reasoning" of the evolutionists that all life began in the sea, therefore man is evolved from fish. Both you and Scalvert have purposely (imo) avoided that.
Answer the question. How does the attack on my evidence proove that man has evolved from fish? |
How can one answer a question that makes absolutely no sense? It's a non sequitur, a false cause. One does not follow from the other. Your logic is faulty. You have committed a logical fallacy, etc. etc. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:12:24 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Answer the question. How does the attack on my evidence proove that man has evolved from fish? |
They are not claiming it DOES, dude. Are you sure you are asking the question you mean to ask? Perhaps what you mean to be asking is "how can you use this logic to debunk me, when by the same standards you'd have to debunk the claim that men evolved from fish"?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:13:01 PM · #581 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...there is no actual evidenciary link that proves man evolved from fish. |
Of course there is. We have very clear fossil evidence of transitions between marine animals and land animals (and back), between amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, from early mammals to primates, and from primates to man. Belief in the unknown is faith. Disbelief in the known is just ignorance. :-/
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 15:13:34. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:13:09 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
How does the attack on my evidence proove that man has evolved from fish? |
The same way that Jonnie Cochran's criticism of the O.J. Simpson evidence proves that porcupines are allergic to bananas. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. |
It could, if the evidence suggested such. Regardless you have answered my question. You have given me a fine example of your evidence (the aquatic life/layers). There is no proof that man evolved from the sea, only circumstantial evidence which you choose to believe. Thus, my circumstantial archeological evidence regarding Biblical events is at least that convincing.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:14:54 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Answer the question. How does the attack on my evidence proove that man has evolved from fish? |
They are not claiming it DOES, dude. Are you sure you are asking the question you mean to ask? Perhaps what you mean to be asking is "how can you use this logic to debunk me, when by the same standards you'd have to debunk the claim that men evolved from fish"?
R. |
I thought it was pretty clear that the question I was asking was the question you phrased.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:17:42 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You have given me a fine example of your evidence (the aquatic life/layers). There is no proof that man evolved from the sea, only circumstantial evidence which you choose to believe. Thus, my circumstantial archeological evidence regarding Biblical events is at least that convincing. |
Direct fossil evidence of the stages from marine life to humans, along with genetic analysis and anatomical observation, is NOT the same as saying somebody named David lived a few thousand years ago in the Middle East, so a storybook account of giants must also be true. It's a complete failure of logic.
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 15:18:08. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:18:27 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by Flash:
There is no proof that man evolved from the sea, only circumstantial evidence which you choose to believe. Thus, my circumstantial archeological evidence regarding Biblical events is at least that convincing. |
You have no circumstantial evidence. The two are not related. To put it plainly, it is just as likely that your shard came from a pot made by an individual who heard your story and liked it, or who had the same name because the story was so popular. It does not in itself provide circusmstantial evidence that the story was factual. Even by the admission of the director of the excavation that uncovered the shard, it is in no way evidence of the veracity of the story, circumstantial or otherwise. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 03:40:32 PM · #586 |
To those that celebrate it; have a great Thanksgiving. I always enjoy the banter here. One of the things I can be thankful for.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 04:09:46 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by Flash:
There is no proof that man evolved from the sea, only circumstantial evidence which you choose to believe. |
There's pretty direct evidence in embryology and histology, as humans at one stage develop gills, which are then reformed into other structures. The development of the semi-permeable phospholipid cell wall enabled us to, as Isaac Asimov put it, "carry the sea around with us" in the form of the modfied saline solution which comprises the majority of our body weight, both intra- and extra-cellularly. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 04:15:20 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by Flash:
There is no proof that man evolved from the sea, only circumstantial evidence which you choose to believe. |
The human embryo at an early stage of its development exhibits gills. There's a principle, sometimes stated as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny", that explains this; that as a fetus deveops, it "relives" some of the earlier stages of the species' evolution.
"Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory."
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 04:59:59 PM · #589 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...there is no actual evidenciary link that proves man evolved from fish. |
[n]Limbs in fish to tetrapod limbs[/b]
Review
Fins, limbs, and tails: outgrowths and axial patterning in vertebrate evolution
Michael I. Coates 1 *, Martin J. Cohn 2
1Department of Biology, University College London, London
2Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College, London, London, UK
email: Michael I. Coates (m.coates@ucl.ac.uk)
*Correspondence to Michael I. Coates, Department of Biology, University College, London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK
Funded by:
BBSRC
Abstract
Current phylogenies show that paired fins and limbs are unique to jawed vertebrates and their immediate ancestry. Such fins evolved first as a single pair extending from an anterior location, and later stabilized as two pairs at pectoral and pelvic levels. Fin number, identity, and position are therefore key issues in vertebrate developmental evolution. Localization of the AP levels at which developmental signals initiate outgrowth from the body wall may be determined by Hox gene expression patterns along the lateral plate mesoderm. This regionalization appears to be regulated independently of that in the paraxial mesoderm and axial skeleton. When combined with current hypotheses of Hox gene phylogenetic and functional diversity, these data suggest a new model of fin/limb developmental evolution. This coordinates body wall regions of outgrowth with primitive boundaries established in the gut, as well as the fundamental nonequivalence of pectoral and pelvic structures. BioEssays 20:371-381, 1998. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons Inc.
early evolution of vertebrates (we're vertebrates last time I checked)
Review article
Origin and early evolution of the vertebrates: New insights from advances in molecular biology, anatomy, and palaeontology
Nicholas D. Holland 1 *, Junyuan Chen 2
1Division of Marine Biology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
2Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Academia Sinica, China
*Correspondence to Nicholas D. Holland, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093-0202.
Funded by:
US NSF; Grant Number: IBN96-309938
National Foundation of Natural Sciences of China; Grant Number: 49872004
Ministry of Science and Technology of China; Grant Number: G2000077700
Abstract
Recent advances in molecular biology and microanatomy have supported homologies of body parts between vertebrates and extant invertebrate chordates, thus providing insights into the body plan of the proximate ancestor of the vertebrates. For example, this ancestor probably had a relatively complex brain and a precursor of definitive neural crest. Additional insights into early vertebrate evolution have come from recent discoveries of Lower Cambrian soft body fossils of Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia (almost certainly vertebrates, possibly related to modern lampreys) and Yunnanozoon and Haikouella (evidently stem-group vertebrates). The earliest vertebrates had an unequivocally marine origin, probably evolved mineralised pharyngeal denticles before the dermal skeleton, and evidently utilised elastic recoil of the visceral arch skeleton for suction feeding. Moreover, the new data emphasise that the advent of definitive neural crest was supremely important for the evolutionary origin of the vertebrates. BioEssays 23:142-151, 2001. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
conservation of genes throughout vertebrate evolution] not really proof of evolution, but supports theory of last common ancestor
The complete sequence of a chromosomal mouse α-globin gene reveals elements conserved throughout vertebrate evolution
Yutaka Nishioka and Philip Leder
Laboratory of Molecular Genetics National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Bethesda, Maryland 20205 USA
Summary
The mammalian α- and β-globin genes are thought to have evolved from a common ancestral sequence by a duplication event that occurred over 500 million years ago. We have now determined the entire nucleotide sequence of a cloned mouse α-globin gene, including regions that flank and interrupt the coding sequence, and have compared this sequence with the sequences of the two mouse β-globin genes (Konkel, Tilghman and Leder, 1978; Konkel, Maizel and Leder, 1979). Like the two β genes, the α gene is interrupted by two intervening sequences at precisely homologous positions, suggesting that these interruptions were present and have been preserved throughout vertebrate evolution. While the α and β genes conserve considerable (55%) sequence homology in their coding regions, this homologyâwith certain interesting exceptionsâis lost in the highly divergent flanking and intervening sequences. These exceptions are short preserved sequences positioned in such a way that they might encode signals for transcriptional initiation, poly(A) addition and RNA splicing. Furthermore, a comparison of the recently diverged β genes and the long separate α gene allows us to distinguish two clearly different modes of nucleotide sequence change in evolution: a fast mode which is characterized by drastic sequence alterations involving deletions and insertions, and a slow mode which preserves sequence homology to a large extent and involves mainly point mutations.
I have to go. If someone wants, I can find more stuff on evolution from fish to humans since all I've posted really is fish to tetrapods, but nobody reads my stuff anyways. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 05:19:57 PM · #590 |
So this is where Shannon has been. Life is so peaceful when I turn rant off.
I'm going to do my best to stay out here, but I just wanted to say that even by the time I was doing undergrad biology (early '90s) the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was pretty well an antequated idea.
Here's the wiki on it: "During the late 19th century, Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory, or biogenetic law, was widely accepted. This theory was often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", i.e. the development of an organism exactly mirrors the evolutionary development of the species. Haeckel's early version of this hypothesis (that the embryo mirrors adult evolutionary ancestors) has since been rejected, and the hypothesis amended as the embryo's development mirroring embryos of its evolutionary ancestors. Most modern biologists recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explain them using evolutionary theory, or view them as supporting evidence for that theory. Williamson believes that larvae and embryos represent adults in other taxa that have been transferred by hybridization (the larval transfer theory)[3] [4]"
Personally I think the argument risks too much circularity. We have preconceived notions of our ancestral lines and can pick/choose features which match our preconceived notion. It's a little too much hocus-pocus to be considered good scientific evidence. (And don't worry fellow scientists, I am a firm believer in evolutionary theory). |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 05:26:02 PM · #591 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
And, by extension, yours, as well. |
Uh.. noooo... and I knew you were going to make that mistake. Read carefully before you post. |
I did.
When I said "And, by extension, yours, as well" my statement does not constitute an acceptance on my part of your logic. Rather it is a rhetorical style used to point out that IF such logic were true, then it would be as logically applicable to your own statement as it would be to that which you attempted to apply it to. |
My statement was the original. You can't refute it based on a trick of semantics. It happened like this.
Louis: A and B equals C.
Ron: Likewise, D and E equals F.
Louis: Bat and Duck equals Doorstop.
Ron: Therefore A and B doesn't equal C. |
Yes, I can. And no, it didn't. It was more like
Louis: Who said A + B was false? No one denies that B is true. Falsity is not in B within A, but in C.
Ron: That's what I've been saying about evolution. Let me paraphrase: Who said D + E was false. No one denies that E is true. Falsity is not in E within D, but in F.
Louis: I can do that, too. Who said G + H was false. No one denies that H is true. Falsity is not in H within G, but in I. YOUR argument is weak because it lacks substance.
Ron: Then, by logical extension, so did yours. Unless you get to unilaterally define what "substance" is.
Louis: OOOOOHHHHH! Did you even read before you wrote?
Ron: Yes. I did.
Louis: Well, I can fabricate a summary of what transpired to make it look like you don't know squat about logic.
Ron: Yes, you can. But sentient beings can see through your ruse. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 07:22:18 PM · #592 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I think the argument risks too much circularity. We have preconceived notions of our ancestral lines and can pick/choose features which match our preconceived notion. It's a little too much hocus-pocus to be considered good scientific evidence. (And don't worry fellow scientists, I am a firm believer in evolutionary theory). |
There is now a whole field of biology looking into this made possible with advances in genetic and molecular biology. Very interesting stuff
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 April 25; 97(9): 4424â4425.
Special Feature
The evolution of evo-devo biology
Corey S. Goodman, Editorial Board Member and Bridget C. Coughlin, Associate Recruiting Editor
Once seen as distinct, yet complementary disciplines, developmental biology and evolutionary studies have recently merged into an exciting and fruitful relationship. The official union occurred in 1999 when evolutionary developmental biology, or âevo-devo,â was granted its own division in the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB). It was natural for evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists to find common ground. Evolutionary biologists seek to understand how organisms evolve and change their shape and form. The roots of these changes are found in the developmental mechanisms that control body shape and form. Developmental biologists try to understand how alterations in gene expression and function lead to changes in body shape and pattern. So although SICB only recently validated evo-devo as an independent research area, evo-devo really started over a decade ago when biologists began using an individual organism's developmental gene expression patterns to explain how groups of organisms evolved.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 07:46:07 PM · #593 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to do my best to stay out here, but I just wanted to say that even by the time I was doing undergrad biology (early '90s) the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was pretty well an antequated idea. |
Doc, be fair. I *did* include the relevant quote from the wiki in my post:
"Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory."
It's still a good way to provide graphic food for thought in this thread.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 07:51:36 PM · #594 |
| Well, it looks like I found this thread about 560 posts too late. :) Most of the fun is over. I like annoying both sides on this debate. The creationists are easy to rebut while the evolutionists tend to understate the areas which need refinement in regards to a complete timeline of the rise of life from organic molecule to human. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:19:57 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it looks like I found this thread about 560 posts too late. :) Most of the fun is over. I like annoying both sides on this debate. The creationists are easy to rebut while the evolutionists tend to understate the areas which need refinement in regards to a complete timeline of the rise of life from organic molecule to human. |
Well, rather than being a proclaimed nuisance, why don't you tell us where you stand as to your feelings on whether a man of reason can have faith.....or not!......8>)
C'mon, I double-dog dare ya!......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:30:20 PM · #596 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it looks like I found this thread about 560 posts too late. :) Most of the fun is over. I like annoying both sides on this debate. The creationists are easy to rebut while the evolutionists tend to understate the areas which need refinement in regards to a complete timeline of the rise of life from organic molecule to human. |
Well, rather than being a proclaimed nuisance, why don't you tell us where you stand as to your feelings on whether a man of reason can have faith.....or not!......8>)
C'mon, I double-dog dare ya!......8>) |
If he doesn't agree, we know he considers himself an unreasonable man :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:33:18 PM · #597 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... why don't you tell us where you stand as to your feelings on whether a man of reason can have faith.....or not!) |
Why is this even a question? We already have clear evidence. A sizable percentage of the world's scientists, including respected members in evolutionary and genetic fields, do their research on computers running Windows. That, my friend, takes faith. ;-P
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 21:33:42. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:54:54 PM · #598 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it looks like I found this thread about 560 posts too late. :) Most of the fun is over. I like annoying both sides on this debate. The creationists are easy to rebut while the evolutionists tend to understate the areas which need refinement in regards to a complete timeline of the rise of life from organic molecule to human. |
Well, rather than being a proclaimed nuisance, why don't you tell us where you stand as to your feelings on whether a man of reason can have faith.....or not!......8>)
C'mon, I double-dog dare ya!......8>) |
Reason and faith is much like a light switch. You can't turn on one without turning off the other. ;) |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:08:18 PM · #599 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To those that celebrate it; have a great Thanksgiving. I always enjoy the banter here. One of the things I can be thankful for. |
You too!
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 11:18:40 PM · #600 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To those that celebrate it; have a great Thanksgiving. I always enjoy the banter here. One of the things I can be thankful for. |
Indeed. Have a great holiday and come back for more assault and bantery. |
|
