Why don't you provide evidence? All your citations are tentative, disputed & say that some believe they may or might be related but no one offers evidence.
Even someone who U say contributed to our understanding of evolution doesn't buy your bullshit. I told you from the beginning I have cited the work of evolutionist not creationist. I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist. I told you when you actually read material, you find just how flimsy the evidence is. U have nothing
I have provided evidence. Why don't you provide me with what I am basically begging you for. The level of criteria you deem as appropriate and reasonable evidence.
"I told you from the beginning I have cited the work of evolutionist not creationist."
and the work itself supports evolution. You haven't offered anything in favour of any alternative nor offered up your creationist alternative for scrunity
@ProcInc "I have provided evidence" Bullshit What happened to abstract you cite you said the full study supplied evidence?
Do you think that this creature went extinct then all of a sudden it magically turned into a trilobite? Doesn't the theory say life gradually evolves into more complex creatures or "Hopeful Monster"? Why is unreasonable to ask for evidence of transitional stages? I have cited more refutation of this creature being ancestral than you have cited for the affirmative.
@ProcInc "The Trilobites prior to the Cambrian Explosion are exemplary examples of transitional forms"
The earliest trilobites are trilobites and there were many, soft and hard bodied with ambiguous relationships.
Your playing dumb again. I gave you the sequence criteria from Spriggina to trilobites. Your just playing mind games. In all our heated conversations I have not tried to piss on your leg and tell you it was raining. If you think your bullshitting me your only bullshitting yourself.
That's because they're trilobites (as I said before the first chihuahuas were chihuahuas). But they are not there from the very beginning and they certainly didn't appear during the Cambrian Explosion. The first trilobites are the simplest and least diverse, just as evolution demands.
"I gave you the sequence criteria from Spriggina to trilobites."
If you did its gone missing. Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
@ProcInc "I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist."
"Why would you? How could you?"
I wasn't on a creationist post, but u were on an atheist post. I can easily accuse an atheist of allowing his or her world view or philosophical opinion to interfere with their judgment concerning science, but I don't have to even if it were true.
A personal world view should have nothing to do with science. You have mentioned creationism multiple times. I have only spoken of science.
@benthemiester "I can easily accuse an atheist of allowing his or her world view or philosophical opinion to interfere with their judgment concerning science, but I don't have to even if it were true."
And of course it isn't true so you would not be justified in doing such a thing.
"You have mentioned creationism multiple times."
You are a creationist though.
You claim to have spoken only of science but the only science you even cite supports evolution and doesn't support you.
@ProcInc "And of course it isn't true so you would not be justified in doing such a thing"
Then why would you judge others by a standard you yourself admit to not being true concerning a persons world view? The truth is that this standard applies to both sides and both sides have been guilty of it in some degree, & usually by those who don't research much, however there are many exceptions where people aren't guilty of it. That is why I have chosen to rely solely on empirical science.
@benthemiester "Then why would you judge others by a standard you yourself admit to not being true concerning a persons world view?"
Creationism is something different to atheism. Especially since creationists can be atheists. Creationism is a wholly dishonest, disrespectful and disinformative movement to attempt to discredit the various theories of biology, geology, cosmology etc conected with various origins sciences.
@ProcInc "Nothing, its still there for you to purchase and read" If you had it you would have sent it to prove your case. Like I said your only bullshitting yourself.
@benthemiester "If you had it you would have sent it to prove your case. Like I said your only bullshitting yourself."
You demanded that I purchase papers myself to read them. I ask the same of you in that case.
I know that you have already made up in your mind to deny it in advance because you are more interested in what you already believe than the truth. I may as well encourage you to spend your own money in doing so, otherwise I would be taking you more seriously than I should
@benthemiester "I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist."
Why would you? How could you?
"I told you when you actually read material, you find just how flimsy the evidence is."
But you didn't read the material, you read abstracts, summaries etc. You once told me that if I was to read a paperthat you have bought you have to buy it yourself and now you refuse to read it unless I buy it for you all the while having your response in advance no matter what it says
haha okay. Let's ignore all of the paleobiology, all of the genetics, all of the resulting cladistic harmony, all of the morphological analysis and all of the geologically recorded climatology of the era. Let's chuck away all of my evidence.
Let's even throw away the millions of years involved in the explosion alone. The three million years you pretend is a literal instant.
Dawkins has said the same concerning sudden appearance & unknown ancestry. Blaming this historical observance on creationist or anyone else else is absurd. Some Chinese scientist have even said the initial radiation event might have been as little as three million years. A blink of an eye on geo time scale. Every single supposed transitional mentioned is disputed in the literature by rational scientist keeping irrational wishful thinking ones in check, & doing so for the dignity of science.
@benthemiester "Dawkins has said the same concerning sudden appearance & unknown ancestry." Dawkins is neither an expert nor an authority. He has also clarified his statement in response to the dishonest gloatings of creationists.
"Some Chinese scientist have even said the initial radiation event might have been as little as three million years".
They have backed this up by giving indications on how it could happen in 3 million years.
cont.... to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye,
@ProcInc If you read the thread you would realize I referenced it to the geological time scale. Yes three million is a blink in the eye according to the geo time scale.
It may seem like a lot in terms of human life but it is not. We have already established the problem you have with reading comprehension. No one knows the exact time these are based on estimations. It could have taken even less.
I'm not sure what you mean by back up. This event really happened, you can check.
@benthemiester "I'm not sure what you mean by back up." As in they have demonstrated that the necessary levels of evolution are more than plausible within that time frame given the concordance of information.
@ProcInc "Think of how many generations would spawn in 3,000,000 years especaly considering these are mostly invertebrates."
Generations of what? Give me a list of the ancestors of all the phyla arising already already highly complex and allready within their own categories, and tell me how you have come to the conclusion that they are ancestral. I really don't think you understand this subject. I am speaking of the initial radiation event & do you understand what C Value paradox is?
@benthemiester "Generations of what?" Generations of invertebrate species (plus our own Cambrian ancestors, the vertebrates). Surely since you contend that these species are so similar to those of today they would have a similar generation time, or are you inclined to believe they bred every few hundred years? Which still yields several hundred thousand generations.
@ProcInc "Generations of invertebrate species (plus our own Cambrian ancestors, etc
I am not speaking of todays animals. I was speaking of initial radiation event.
The mystery is not just living phyla appearing in several orders of magnitude globally & abruptly and already categorized, but were did they come from. If you have a detailed chart please provide it and the empirical evidence establishing ancestry. As of now all we have are hypothesis but if you know more then please cite.
@benthemiester "I am not speaking of todays animals. I was speaking of initial radiation event."
Being vague doesn't help the case.
The Cambrian explosion is a diversification of basal representatives of recgonisable phyla over a 5-10 million year period preceded by basal representatives of recognisable supergroups and correlating with dramatic changes in geological and climatic upheaval.
Its a major evolutionary event. Geological instances are not literal instances.
Aside from the already prevalent comparative morphology and the temporal placement, what sort of 'emperical evidence' do you deem necessary or reasonably possible?
How do you reconcile the paradox of your silliness that a five thousand millenia event indicates an instantaneous supernatural creation?
@ProcInc "My remastered video gives a reasonable list of the more striking Precambrian prerequisites."
Your reason is based on subjectivity and your reasoning is flawed by automatically calling them prerequisites with out empirical evidence to support this conclusion. Don't you believe in empirical science?
Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe less complex life developed into more complex life?
No, its based on comparative anatomy. Meanwhile yours is based off the political manifesto of an evangelist lawyer. Emperical science supports evolutionary theory.
"Do you believe less complex life developed into more complex life?"
Yes, in fact that usually the expected case. More complex life can sometimes evolve to a more (in some cases MUCH more) simple state. Just a matter of biological economics
@ProcInc If you look closer at the paper the above title is called HYPOTHESIS. CONT...
"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists"
@benthemiester Soo basically what you are doing is underplaying the content of the article...and then quote a fleeting afterthought OF the article which you feel in one bastardtised interpretation lend credence to your views at the expense of ignoring the overall content?
Its bizzare seeing the way a creationist works.
Is it a credible article or not? It certainly has a lot of good data supporting its explanatory documentation of the Cambrian Explosion.
@ProcInc Being vague? I said initial radiation event twice. Do you know what radiation event I speaking of? Do you know what Cambrian radiation even means? I have no idea what your response to my thread has anything to do with the question.
"Meanwhile yours is based off the political manifesto of an evangelist lawyer"
When have I cited anything from an evangelist lawyer? Please cite any time I have used evangelist citation. Comparative anatomy. Lets compare your example please cite?
@benthemiester "Do you know what Cambrian radiation even means?"
Yes I do, I also know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean instantaneous supernatural creation event of seperately conjured kinds. It means a rapid evolution and establishment of basic animal body plans within a 5-10 million year span of time.
"When have I cited from an evangelist lawyer?"
You are an ID creationist. Your campaign is to undermine science. The groundwork for the movement was laid out by said evangelist
@ProcInc Empirical evidence has nothing to do with your personal subjective sense of what is and isn't reasonable or anyone else's. Thats why its called empirical science, because it takes all the guess work out of subjective reasonable possibilities.
@benthemiester "Empirical evidence has nothing to do with your personal subjective sense of what is and isn't reasonable or anyone else's."
Okay, so how do we determine what IS a reasonable amount of emperical evidence and what IS said reasonable amount?
Because the current archive of emerical evidence, whether you deem it sufficient or not is unequivocally indicative of the evolution you parody and deny.
We have also taken out the unreasonable impossibilities like that you laud
Respond to this video... This always happens when someone is challenged on this subject. People always revert back to philosophical semantic answers or questions.
"This always happens when someone is challenged on this subject. People always revert back to philosophical semantic answers or questions."
I was simply asking what you would deem to be reasonable evidence and how would you justify that as an objective level of criteria?
You were never going to answer any of the questions I answered because the minute you lay out criteria there's the potential to meet it and you can't take that risk if you are to keep believing what you want
@ProcInc Praecambridium sigillum ("Sigil of the Precambrian") resembles a segmented trilobite-like arthropod, though many experts place it within the proarticulatan family Dickinsoniidae.
This is what you call empirical science? What happened to your diatribe concerning a consensus? Please show me the intermediates. Out of all these tons of fossils you claim, there has to be at least some intermediates.
This a opposition and is stated as such. Your research has a lot to be desired.
@benthemiester "This is what you call empirical science?"
No Ben, that is a sumary of he conclusions drawn by the emperical science.
"Please show me the intermediates."
Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea I was dialoguing with Duane Gish. If you want the best examples of transitional forms you can find them in the Cambrian itself (Such as the lobopods). I was under the impression we were discussing primitive predecessors
@benthemiester "Out of all these tons of fossils you claim"
Ton of fossils? I can hardly think of six. The Precambrian fossil record is poor and fossil bearing strata is few and far between. Nearly the entire Ediacaran Ecosystem is on display 6km from me its only a few m^2
When the fossils get numerous, the case for evolution gets stronger. The more evidence there is the more it is in favour of evolution.
So your arguments is "there's so little evidence!". Pretty standard tactic.
@benthemiester "Can you please elaborate on this? Why do you think a Chihuahua analogy is relevant?"
Because you're trying to argue that it is somehow profound that the first trilobite was a trilobite. Would it make any sense that the first trilobite *wasn't* a trilobite? Is wasn't the more evolved trilobites of the middle Cambrian-Permian.
"Why is it?" Because only a few square metres of Ediacaran fossil bearing rocks have ever been excavated. We do well with what we have
@ProcInc Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
"Did trilobites appear suddenly out of nowhere?"
According to the fossil record they did. Their are some scientist who study Cambrian rock who believe this and they are not Christians.
We can hypothesis how this happened, & maybe someday these hypothesis may prove to be correct, but as of now, sometimes its ok and more honest to say, we just don't know.
@benthemiester "According to the fossil record they did."
According to the fossil record velvet worms haven't existed since the Cambrian and reappeared today.
Its very silly that you literally think that
"Their are some scientist who study Cambrian rock who believe this and they are not Christians."
They aren't credible either. All scientists worth their socks understand that they the product of evolution, and this includes christian ones (not that religion is relvevent)
@benthemiester "its ok and more honest to say, we just don't know."
But we do know that evolution has proven right all those other times gaps have appeared in the past and that it is ridiculous to assume that animals literally appeared fully formed out of nowhere when we have trace evidence of animals existing before them.
Your belief in the axiom of the ordained spontaneous becoming of living things is as silly as it has been since the classical age
@ProcInc Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
Ill try to make this easy for u since you don't seem to know what transitional sequence is. I really cant blame you since they seem to be not existent.
Starting with Spriggina which has no mouth, anus or internal organs, you would gradually see these features starting to appear along with extremely sophisticated eyes.To say the record is poor is a cop out. The evidence is non existence. You can wish all you want. It wont change the fact.
@benthemiester "I really cant blame you since they seem to be not existent."
Where the fossil record is strong there are many transitional sequences including that of our own hertiage.
Spriggina does in fact have a mouth and an anus. There is a gap followed by sparse trilobites with soft bodies and more reticulation, later the trilobites of the mid Cambrian which are more diverse and complex.
The origin of eyes appear to be a catalyst for the rapid evolution of the mid Cambrian
Respond to this video... "Spriggina does in fact have a mouth and an anus"
The segments in many of the specimens (e.g. Spriggina) appear to be ... "Gutless " fauna have no mouth, digestive system or anus - apparently ... but the fact that some of his kingdom do not fit casts doubt on the whole hypothesis. ...
@benthemiester you misquoted the hell out of that! Spriggina is not descibed to be gutless or mouthless, instead riftia is. your ellipse goes over a whole PARAGRAPH where the subject is completely changed at least twice!
here: "Spriggina floundersi appears to be an errant annelid. It possesses definate cephalization (it has a well developed head) and a mouth. Specimens also show definate segmentation, with rare specimens possessing possible setae, and a through gut."
@ProcInc Chihuahuas are not an evolved species. They were bred & their original ancestors were wolves. As we bred them through artificial selection they did not gain any new genetic information, they lost genetic information and are at the shallow end of the gene pool. Much of the wolf like features have been bred out of them and they are now degenerates of original stock. Natural selection does the same thing in the wild and ultimately genetic variation gets lost and you hit a brick wall.
They are an evolved SUBspecies. Canis Lupus is the evolved species and Canis is the evolved genus.
"they did not gain any new genetic information, they lost genetic information and are at the shallow end of the gene pool"
Obviously you don't understand how genetics works but that's for another time. Evolution does not rely on "information" however you define it, increasing (though this is often the case).
@ProcInc "Where the fossil record is strong there are many transitional sequences including that of our own heritage"
Another myth. I bet you couldn't even name a sequence and are probably not even aware of the controversy, even among anthro paleontologist. This is a subject filled with confusion, disagreement, misinformation, and sometimes even deliberate hoaxes.
We find sudden appearance followed by long periods of stasis and limited change. J Gould. Niles Eldridrige.
"We find sudden appearance followed by long periods of stasis and limited change. J Gould. Niles Eldridrige."
Gould and Edridge have pointed out the way creationists distort punctuated equilibrium and point out that transitional sequences are replete between higher taxa. The sudden appearence and stasis is limited to the species level and even then there are a small number of sequences linking species rather than higher taxa.
@ProcInc How does your PM prove they had guts and anus? Did you read the last sentence of your own citation.
"The sudden appearence and stasis is limited to the species level etc"
Sudden appearance relates to major groups of animals. Speciation is much more feasible and we can mimic this through cultivation and artificial selection through breeding. You are simply ignorant on this subject. I have backed my claims and will not continue to repeat myself. Please do more serious research.
@benthemiester "How does your PM prove they had guts and anus? "
It doesn't Ben, it proves you were lying when you claimed the source said they were gutless. I did read the last sentence though you either didn't read any of it or lied about what it said after reading it.
"Sudden appearance relates to major groups of animals."
No it doesn't.
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."-Gould in response to IDists
@ProcInc What are you talking about? the rest of the citation does nothing to help your case. Outdated source? You were offering citations from 1981. Your a very amusing fellow to say the least.
@benthemiester "Are you even familiar with the term loss of genetic variation?"
Yes, I am also familiar enough with the subject to know that genetic variation also increases. I also understand that genetic variation and information are two entirely different things though you seem to be trying to assert they are the same.
"Spriggina is gutless"
That doesn't appear to be what paleontologists concur with Ben. I gave a proper source, you didn't
@ProcIncFrom (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.): "...the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species...Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives." (p. 749.) .......
Respond to this video... "The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." (p. 753.)......
Respond to this video... A localized population...suddenly appear(s) on the scene and then continue(s) essentially unchanged until [they] become(s) extinct." (Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, 2001 p. 63.)
@benthemiester Ben, you have tried to pride yourself with attempting to defend creationism honestly, this case has been undermined consistently throughout but that you are now resorting to quote mining is a ridiculously blatant admission of your guilt and disinterest in honesty.
Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr both have delivered exhaustive accounts on transitional forms and the very books your mention document the more striking ones.
You can't have read the books without knowing this
@ProcInc I have always quoted from the literature I never said these men were creationist & anyone can claim a transitional species, but when you look at the evidence much closer you find that many assumptions are made. U can find others in the same field that disagree, e.g. horse whale transition. Mis categorizing fossils is much more common than you might think. The discontinuity of the fossil record is well known and is in the literature, but there are many different hypotheses out there.
@benthemiester "I have always quoted from the literature"
No Ben, as I pointed out to you several times you have quoted from creationist doctoring of literature. The literature does not even implicitly support your position.
Transitional fossils exist and continuties always exist where the fossil record is more replete. No practising paleontologist contests this nor evolution itself.
That's why you quoted from genesissafaries rather than directly from Mayr's book
@ProcInc I never said the consensus accepts my position or view. Most accept the ToE and many claims are made. There is a big difference between claims and empirical evidence. For every supposed transitional there is dispute, disagreement or hoax from everything to Ida, Lucy, Archaeoraptor, equine, Archaeopteryx, Piltdown to the wales tale.
If someone could turn these hypothesis into conclusive evidence there would be a Noble prize out there for such a person.
@benthemiester Its noBEL prize Ben and there is no category for the discovery of fossils, so many transitional fossils are found each year it would be impossible to fairly judge anyway.
No reputable scientist disagrees that Lucy, Ida, Archaeopteryx and the protocetaceans are transitional forms, no scientists ever argued that archaeoraptor *was* a transtional form, Piltdown man was disproved by other transitional forms and the work of evolutionary anthropologists.
@benthemiester "I never said the consensus accepts my position or view."
The reason behind this is that your position is wrong, refuted and downright childish.
Emperical evidence does support evolution and "claims" are merely descriptions of this evidence. As pointed out there is no dispute that transitional forms exist and that the volume of them is a compelling argument for evolution.
There has never been any evidence fossiliferous or otherwise indicative of your silly pareidolia
@benthemiester "I suppose the term reputable is determined by whether they agree or not." No Ben, its determined by how they are able to substantiate their claims, and they have.
"This one is news to me. Its BS but very original."
Ben, perhaps if you did your research outsite of creationist sources you would know that Weiner, Oakley and Le Gros Clark were responsible for the evidence revealing it to be a forgery. All studied and accepted evolution
@ProcInc "so many transitional fossils are found each year"
This mantra is one of my personal favorites.
"it would be impossible to fairly judge anyway"
Very interesting, "it would be impossible to fairly judge" yet you have already made judgment on all these many claims that you cant even name. For every supposed transition there is dispute and disagreement. Archaeopteryx is not the oldest bird found, and not all believe in the Dino to Bird hypothesis.
@benthemiester "For every supposed transition there is dispute and disagreement"
Not on their status as a transitional species. Disputes, if any are over their collateral placement
There is now no notable controversy over the fact that birds descended from (and are) dinosaurs. The counter arguments presented by other scientists have been addressed and refuted by subsequent findings.
No paleontologist would argue transitional forms have not and are not being found
@ProcInc The term transitional has changed over time. In Darwin's day a transitional meant a fossil supported by a series of other fossils showing gradual stages of development (we never found those) Today any extinct or extant animal is called a transitional. This is a case were the theory is the proof regardless of the lack of evidence. This is called circular reasoning. The "hopeful monster" "punctuated equilibrium" are all more or less hypothesis that try to explain the lack of transitions.
@benthemiester "The term transitional has changed over time. In Darwin's day a transitional meant a fossil supported by a series of other fossils showing gradual stages of development (we never found those)"
If you researched outside genesissafaries you'd know we have in fact found those but the definition hasn't changed. Even Darwin made the definition clear in his book.
Besides, even if the definition had changed, we have found transitionals that conform to the strictest definitions
@benthemiester "The "hopeful monster" "punctuated equilibrium" are all more or less hypothesis that try to explain the lack of transitions."
Ben, nobody of any scientific worth works by saltationism and as I pointed out Gould and Eldridge themselves (as well as Mayr) made clear that transitional forms are abundant. Punctuated Equilibrium is concerned with populational speciation within small groups and so often representatives of these daughter species don't fosilise.
@benthemiester A transitional fossils is one that shows the traits of different 'kinds' of animals or plants. A dinosaur with feathers, a land animal with a whale's ear, a fish with legs. They have all been found.
@gregrutz ? The only problem with that paradigme, is that pakicetus is now known to be a land animal based on more recent fossil discoveries. The notion that Pakicetus had ears that allowed it to hear under water, is a bunch of BS. Unfortunately many still repeat this nonsens. Their ears and bodies were developed for terrestrial life above water, not in the water. Proto Avis is 75 MY older than archaeopteryx.
@benthemiester So show something that proves evolution didn't happen. Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with feathers, a transitional fossil no matter what other evidence is found. One species did not have to die for another to live, evolution is not a ladder. We still have fish and clams, they did not go away just because reptiles evolved.
@gregrutz I agree, many Darwinist ignore the evidence and stick to the assumptions of the theory. If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional. If you have an animal once thought to be adapted for aquatic life, and the belief that it was aquatic proved it as a transitional, only to find years later that it was not aquatic, yet is still thought to be transitional, then you have circular reasoning, and more of a philosophy than a science.
@gregrutz The first question is a little puzzling to me. Anyone can figure this one out, even a child. Its very simple just put your mind to it.
I never said that fossils are assumed. I'm not sure where your getting this stuff from. If your more interested in the extended synthesis, then see my video posted, entitled "Will the real theory of evolution please stand up"? The limitations of the current Darwinian synthesizes are now being questioned and challenged. This is a fact not a fairy tale.
@benthemiester ''current Darwinian synthesizes'' Darwin is not current, he is dead. His ideas are 150 years old. The theory of evolution is updated all the time, it shows how the proven fact of evolution happens.
@gregrutz ''current Darwinian synthesizes'' Darwin is not current"
Maybe its you who doesn't understand that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is the Darwinian Synthesis. Look it up.
"Wrong, fish are the grandfather to reptiles and fish are still here today" (speculation)
If you were to find a reptile that was millions of years older than the supposed transition from fish to reptile, then the supposed transition would be false. I urge you to research the subject a little better.
"If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional."
That's a stupid statement. If a cousin lineage to archaeopteryx experiences a faster rate of evolution and ultimately leads to "birds" while archaeopteryx branches off and experiences little to no evolution, there is simply no reason why you couldn't have birds predating {some} archaeopteryx fossils.
@fusedchromosome Your statement makes no sense. I'm not even sure how to respond. Who said proto avis is a cousin to anything, and how could it be a cousin if it shows up 75 MY earlier with even more bird like features. No one has made a phylogenetic relationship. In fact, proto avis predates the same type of dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendent of. Even with out these factors, your statement makes no sense.
"how could it be a cousin if it shows up 75 MY earlier with even more bird like features."
All you did was make the same stupid statement using different words.
Let's say Archaeopteryx was the common ancestor but a subgroup became isolated and evolved separately. During the next 75 million years, the subgroup evolved into birds but Archaeopteryx just kind of plodded along with...
@fusedchromosome "Let's say Archaeopteryx was the common ancestor but a subgroup became isolated and evolved separately. During the next 75 million years, the subgroup evolved into birds but Archaeopteryx just kind of plodded" etc.
That makes even less sense. Arch was supposed to be the transition from dino to bird. If we find a real bird that predates arch & the type dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendant of, that means at best the evolution of birds has to be set back another 75MY.
"If we find a real bird that predates arch & the type dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendant of.."
Again, you're making the same mistake. The fossil record doesn't necessarily contain the "oldest" Archaeopteryx and the "oldest" dinosaur and the "oldest" bird. If we knew that to be the case, you would have a point. But since we only have a small sampling, there's no way to make that conclusion and your assertion fails.
@fusedchromosome The fossil record doesn't necessarily contain the "oldest" Archaeopteryx and the "oldest" dinosaur and the "oldest" bird"
These are based on time lines agreed to by an consensus among evolutionary paleontologist. They're not my rules. Again, this deals with setting the bird evolutionary time line back 75 MY. I dont see why this is so hard for you. If you want to imagine something thats not present in the fossil record until 75 MY later, then thats your choice.
...no significant changes and ultimately went extinct (after the subgroup had already evolved into birds)
Also, I didn't say there was a confirmed relationship. That doesn't matter. I was merely pointing out that just because some bird fossils predate Archaeopteryx fossils doesn't justify your assertion that Archaeopteryx {cannot} be transistional between dinosaurs and birds.
@fusedchromosome No one in the paleontological world is making the claim you are. Again you dont seem to understand and still continue to think arch could be an ancestor of something that predates it.
"No one in the paleontological world is making the claim you are."
We must be reading different books or I need to dumb down my example even further. Evolutionary theory most resembles a bush with groups spawning subgroups spawning subgroups.
"Again you dont seem to understand and still continue to think arch could be an ancestor of something that predates it."
Apparently you still aren't taking the time to understand my example.
Here's another attempt. "a" is the dinosaur ancestor, "b" is Arch, "c" is bird. The capital "A", "B", and "C" are the known fossils. Do you now see how a bird fossil can be older that the Arch and dinosaur fossils?
@fusedchromosome What your having a mental block on is, that Proto Avis predates the type of dino that it is supposed to have evolved from, and your still trying to put Arch before Proto. Look at your own sequence, You wrote it not me. You placed arch as B when the fossil record sequence makes it C. You see, C comes after B,. If you dont even know your ABC's? This is probably the most silly discussion I have ever had with anyone on this is subject. I even gave citation. Your an idiot.
"What your having a mental block on is, that Protoavis predates the type of dino."
I understood your claim the first time. You're trying to assert that no Archs existed until after Protoavis (which just happens to be a highly controversial specimen) existed. If that were true, it would certainly be a problem, however, your assertions don't appear to have anything remotely resembling firm support in the scientific community.
@fusedchromosome You realized how silly your first argument was, and now your trying to throwout anything that sticks to the wall. There will always be those who do not want to believe it when they think an old accepted axiom been challenged. The Lucy fossil was extremely fragmented, and some of the bones were found miles away from the others, and in completely different geological strata. Yet no one complained about it being fragmented. Same goes for Pakicetus when first discovered.
I could not get Youtube to properly display my diagram. It kept deleting the carriage returns and indentation for some bizarre reason. I was trying to show the Proto fossil as oldest, followed by dino, followed by Arch.
@fusedchromosome "I was trying to show the Proto fossil as oldest, followed by dino, followed by Arch"
What do you think I have been saying all along? Thats why I challenged your ABC diagram that was the exact opposite. Where you had dino A then arch B followed by Proto C. You should really be careful who you call stupid next time.
@benthemiester "Where you had dino A then arch B followed by Proto C"
Ben, we KNOW that there are feathered dinosaurs older than Archaeopteryx (Epidexipteryx and Anchiornis)
Until there is any evidence corroborating the fragments that have been called Protoavis (So far nothing in over a decade) then you have little justification in insisting it to the extent that you do considering the overwhelming evidence in favour of the traditional model
Respond to this video... Are you willing to admit you were wrong? You even cited Witmer that agrees with me, that if this is true, (which he admits, many in paleontology do believe it is) that it would set back the evolution of birds 75MY according to the accepted time line. Please tell me you are willing to admit you were wrong about that ABC BS.
@benthemiester "You gave the implication that Chatterjee was alone on this."
Even Chatterjee has pointed out that that both Protoavis and Archaeopteryx are both transitional fossils. Protoavis, even if genuine, which despite 11 years has not been corroberated poses no problem for the evolution of birds.
And Ben you are basing your whole interpretation of the Extended Synthesis off Mazur's dishonesty. MIT's statement in no way resembles the interpretation you are trying to pose.
@fusedchromosome Protoavis specimens have been located in the Upper Triassic Dockum Group sediments of West Texas. Protoavis predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years pushing the origin of birds to the Late Triassic and is considered the oldest known bird (Chatterjee 1999).
@fusedchromosome Chris Nedin isn't even a scientist or even amateur paleontologist. He refuse to believe that Arch is or has been considered to be a transitional fossil, and furthermore, he doesn't even attempt to make the same silly pissing in the wind argument that you were trying to make. Why you even cited this Talk Origins article is beyond me.
"Protoavis predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years pushing the origin of birds to the Late Triassic and is considered the oldest known bird (Chatterjee 1999)."
Chatterjee tried to claim it as the oldest known bird. Unless your definition of "is considered" happens to be whatever Chatterjee said in 1999, you're misrepresenting the confidence in Protoavis. Therefore, I'll just ask what is the general consensus within the scientific community on Protoavis?
Are there any scientists arguing that Protoavis is most likely a chimera? What do other scientists such as Witmer, Paul, Ostrom, Wellnhofer, Chiappe, Feduccia, Sereno, Hunt, Renesto, Nesbitt have to say about it?
Respond to this video... The burden of proof is not on me or anyone else to prove macro evolution didn't happen. The burden is on those who are trying to prove it did. The modern synthesis will have to be revised and extended, and is now in that process. Its called the extended synthesis. The limitations of the current Darwinian synthesis are now being challenged & questioned, & the assumptions of the theory are being relaxed, even by many evolutionist like M. Pigliucci and S. Newman
@benthemiester Darwinian is 150 years out of date. The theory as to how evolution changes all the time, the process of evolution is a fact, macro evolution is proven, DNA was the last proof needed.
@ProcInc Who said anything about Mazur? Calm down, your going to give yourself a heart attack.
MIT Press
Most of the contributors to Evolution - the Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure-
@gregrutz "If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional"
WHY NOT?"
You seem to be having a hard time with this. Thats like saying, why can't you be older than your grandparents? If you cant figure out why you cant be older than your grandparent, then there is nothing I can do to help you understand. Maybe theres a mental block. I dont know.
@benthemiester Wrong, fish are the grandfather to reptiles and fish are still here today. archaeopteryx did not have to go away just because some of them evolved into true birds. You can't prove evolution wrong if you don't even know how it works.
@benthemiester "You seem to be having a hard time with this. Thats like saying, why can't you be older than your grandparents?"
No Ben, it is like saying that you can't have a cousin that looks like a grandparent.
Besides, Protoavis is an overly fragmentary (and possible composite) number of bones which has not had any supportive finds since its discovery 27 years ago. Even the best case scenario for you (that it is a genuine specimen) concludes bird evolution happened
@benthemiester "pakicetus is now known to be a land animal based on more recent fossil discoveries."
Yes, it is a land animal with a whale's ear structure which is exactly what Gregutz said. It is not adapted to the water and that is not being claimed.
The fact it is a whale adapted for life on land makes it transitional.
Protoavis is not a strong fossil to build any kind of case off of.
@benthemiester "(Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, 2001 p. 63.)"
What follows is from the exact same book, on the exact same page...
Fortunately since 1859 the fossil record has improved dramatically and we now have a large number of cases where the gradual change of a species into a derived species can be followed.
This immediately precedes the quote you mined and changed the context of. Obviously you didn't read the book and cropped the quote from a creationist website
@ProcInc "Because you're trying to argue that it is somehow profound that the first trilobite was a trilobite. Would it make any sense that the first trilobite *wasn't* a trilobite? Is wasn't the more evolved trilobites of the middle Cambrian-Permian"
Again what is the chihuahua references are you suggesting Chihuahuas are less evolved? I have no idea what the analogy means if you cant be clear. You know that diversification causes a loss of genetic variability over time don't you?
Respond to this video... "When the fossils get numerous, the case for evolution gets stronger"
According to this logic the evidence for macro evolution is weak because all living things today only represent about 2 % percent of all living things during Cambrian period. Living things are now less numerous. Fossils are relevant because they represented once living things. Please answer these points honestly.
@benthemiester "According to this logic the evidence for macro evolution is weak because all living things today only represent about 2 % percent of all living things during Cambrian period."
Life today is far more diverse than the Cambrian (less recent common ancestor). You need to better elaborate what this sentence means, it makes no sense.
@ProcInc"You demanded that I purchase papers myself to read them. I ask the same of you in that case"
I challenge u to show me the thread were u asked for the full study, in fact I can show you the thread where you thought the abstract that I sent was the full study.
"Ton of fossils? I can hardly think of six" "Ediacaran Ecosystem is on display 6km from me its only a few m^2"
In your video you said..... "there were loads, 50 million years worth"
@ProcIncRespond to this video...By the way, the paragraph I quoted earlier was not from an evangelist, it was from citation that you said validated ToE....Just in case you missed it, cont.......
"despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists"
@ProcInc Your second citation says nothing about sprigging, and I have already cited that many experts don't agree with the conclusions of your first citation. You ignored that. Secondly, the oldest of Trilobites belongs to order Redlichiida. There were many different types of trilobite.They had extremely complex body plans and especially eyes.
@ProcInc "Actually the earliest trilobites still resemble the soft bodied worms of their progeny"
Thats nonsense you haven't even established a link. And they look like trilobites. You can find them on display and they look nothing like worms. Are you just making this stuff up? I have a feeling that your probably an average decent fellow like most, but you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever met. You have provided nothing concrete only proposals and speculation.
Ben, I have established a link (for further information check out R Birket-Smith - Zool. Jb. Anat, [1981]). I even asked what you would consider to be a reasonable amount of evidence and why and you avoided the question for fear of it being met.
THAT is intellectual dishonesty.
When you say they don't like worms, are you only referring to annelid worms?
Spriggina, for instance is a worm. It looks far more like a trilobite than the image you apparently have in your head (Earthworm etc)
@ProcInc German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals. Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features. "
@benthemiester "German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species"
He has made admirable contributions to evolutionary biology. He's not really any help to you. His challenges are interesting but in a minority and the implications of his speculations even if entirely true do not help the creationist argument
"Yes it does, just not in the abstract...which is apparently all you read'
Well then PM it & lets take a look. U didn't even know what the Modern Synthesis was, much less what an abstract was until a couple of days ago when I pointed out the difference when you thought I sent the full study. You didn't even know that ERV's had important function or that Coyne wasn't an evolution development biologist or what the term even meant which is common knowledge among most who debate this subject.
@benthemiester You regard yourself quite highly but it is unwarranted. If you had any decent argument against evolutionary theory you could publish it to peer review.
and I did know what evo devo was, it was the subject of my last video and that Jerry Coyne was an ecologist.
You're just a silly creationist with the usual tactics. You can't defend your own position and try your hardest to poke holes in the one legitimate unifying theory of biology
Respond to this video...Spriggina's affinity is currently unknown; it has been classified as an annelid worm, a rangeomorph-like frond, Proarticulata, and an arthropod, perhaps related to the trilobites. Lack of known segmented legs or limbs may make an arthropod classification premature.
@ProcInc cont.....We don't see any indication of organs. We see no legs, no mouths, no anuses, no digestive tracts, nothing to suggest they were animals. We have to stop shoehorning them into categories of modern animals." Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as Vendobionts. The fossils show no characteristics indicating the ability to eat or digest food, but may have absorbed sunlight or chemical nutrients direct from the ocean water.
@ProcInc The second citation you gave speaks of the oldest known trilobite. A fully formed trilobite already extremely complicated. It says nothing about its ancestry. Not sure why you even quoted it?
@benthemiester "The second citation you gave speaks of the oldest known trilobite. A fully formed trilobite already extremely complicated. It says nothing about its ancestry. Not sure why you even quoted it?"
It's not "fully formed", it's a "soft bodied" trilobite, an intermediate between spriggina-like soft worms and the hard bodied trilobite families we are familiar with.
It's also found prior to the Cambrian Explosion spreading out the appearence of phyla (cont)
They themselves are ancestors of the modestly more complex and diverse species of Cambrian Trilobite (themselves more basal than the later trilobites up to their tragic extinction in the Permian). Even in the abstract it discusses the evolution of the trilobite traits in relation to their embryonic ontogeny.
"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.
That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins"
This has been flagged as spam show
ORIGINATE WITH ME
C A M B R I A N P R I M E :
free download available at:
azrael-encarnacion.bandcamp.com
check out cambrian-prime.tumblr.com for more info.
apocalypkidstv 7 months ago
Why don't you provide evidence? All your citations are tentative, disputed & say that some believe they may or might be related but no one offers evidence.
Even someone who U say contributed to our understanding of evolution doesn't buy your bullshit. I told you from the beginning I have cited the work of evolutionist not creationist. I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist. I told you when you actually read material, you find just how flimsy the evidence is. U have nothing
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Why don't you provide evidence?"
I have provided evidence. Why don't you provide me with what I am basically begging you for. The level of criteria you deem as appropriate and reasonable evidence.
"I told you from the beginning I have cited the work of evolutionist not creationist."
and the work itself supports evolution. You haven't offered anything in favour of any alternative nor offered up your creationist alternative for scrunity
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "I have provided evidence" Bullshit What happened to abstract you cite you said the full study supplied evidence?
Do you think that this creature went extinct then all of a sudden it magically turned into a trilobite? Doesn't the theory say life gradually evolves into more complex creatures or "Hopeful Monster"? Why is unreasonable to ask for evidence of transitional stages? I have cited more refutation of this creature being ancestral than you have cited for the affirmative.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Bullshit What happened to abstract you cite you said the full study supplied evidence?"
Nothing, its still there for you to purchase and read
"Do you think that this creature went extinct then all of a sudden it magically turned into a trilobite?"
magic is your vice, not mine. Evolution doesn't work like things suddenly 'changing into other things'. Forget what Ray Comfort taught you .
no, not hopeful monster
What would you accept as transitional form evidence?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "The Trilobites prior to the Cambrian Explosion are exemplary examples of transitional forms"
The earliest trilobites are trilobites and there were many, soft and hard bodied with ambiguous relationships.
Your playing dumb again. I gave you the sequence criteria from Spriggina to trilobites. Your just playing mind games. In all our heated conversations I have not tried to piss on your leg and tell you it was raining. If you think your bullshitting me your only bullshitting yourself.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The earliest trilobites are trilobites"
That's because they're trilobites (as I said before the first chihuahuas were chihuahuas). But they are not there from the very beginning and they certainly didn't appear during the Cambrian Explosion. The first trilobites are the simplest and least diverse, just as evolution demands.
"I gave you the sequence criteria from Spriggina to trilobites."
If you did its gone missing. Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist."
"Why would you? How could you?"
I wasn't on a creationist post, but u were on an atheist post. I can easily accuse an atheist of allowing his or her world view or philosophical opinion to interfere with their judgment concerning science, but I don't have to even if it were true.
A personal world view should have nothing to do with science. You have mentioned creationism multiple times. I have only spoken of science.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I can easily accuse an atheist of allowing his or her world view or philosophical opinion to interfere with their judgment concerning science, but I don't have to even if it were true."
And of course it isn't true so you would not be justified in doing such a thing.
"You have mentioned creationism multiple times."
You are a creationist though.
You claim to have spoken only of science but the only science you even cite supports evolution and doesn't support you.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "And of course it isn't true so you would not be justified in doing such a thing"
Then why would you judge others by a standard you yourself admit to not being true concerning a persons world view? The truth is that this standard applies to both sides and both sides have been guilty of it in some degree, & usually by those who don't research much, however there are many exceptions where people aren't guilty of it. That is why I have chosen to rely solely on empirical science.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Then why would you judge others by a standard you yourself admit to not being true concerning a persons world view?"
Creationism is something different to atheism. Especially since creationists can be atheists. Creationism is a wholly dishonest, disrespectful and disinformative movement to attempt to discredit the various theories of biology, geology, cosmology etc conected with various origins sciences.
Atheism is just a nonbelief in gods
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Nothing, its still there for you to purchase and read" If you had it you would have sent it to prove your case. Like I said your only bullshitting yourself.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "If you had it you would have sent it to prove your case. Like I said your only bullshitting yourself."
You demanded that I purchase papers myself to read them. I ask the same of you in that case.
I know that you have already made up in your mind to deny it in advance because you are more interested in what you already believe than the truth. I may as well encourage you to spend your own money in doing so, otherwise I would be taking you more seriously than I should
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I have not invalidated anyone because they were an atheist."
Why would you? How could you?
"I told you when you actually read material, you find just how flimsy the evidence is."
But you didn't read the material, you read abstracts, summaries etc. You once told me that if I was to read a paperthat you have bought you have to buy it yourself and now you refuse to read it unless I buy it for you all the while having your response in advance no matter what it says
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "U have nothing"
haha okay. Let's ignore all of the paleobiology, all of the genetics, all of the resulting cladistic harmony, all of the morphological analysis and all of the geologically recorded climatology of the era. Let's chuck away all of my evidence.
Let's even throw away the millions of years involved in the explosion alone. The three million years you pretend is a literal instant.
Tell me, what happened.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Dawkins has said the same concerning sudden appearance & unknown ancestry. Blaming this historical observance on creationist or anyone else else is absurd. Some Chinese scientist have even said the initial radiation event might have been as little as three million years. A blink of an eye on geo time scale. Every single supposed transitional mentioned is disputed in the literature by rational scientist keeping irrational wishful thinking ones in check, & doing so for the dignity of science.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Dawkins has said the same concerning sudden appearance & unknown ancestry." Dawkins is neither an expert nor an authority. He has also clarified his statement in response to the dishonest gloatings of creationists.
"Some Chinese scientist have even said the initial radiation event might have been as little as three million years".
They have backed this up by giving indications on how it could happen in 3 million years.
ProcInc 1 year ago
cont.... to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye,
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc "3-10 million year Cambrian Exlosion=happened
instantaneous supernatural creation event=didn't happen"
This your philosophical opinion I was speaking of paleontology & geology.
It would be nice if anyone could back it up by indicating what happen, but as of yet no one knows although there are many hypothesis out there.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "A blink of an eye on geo time scale."
Ben, farbeit from me to suggest that you can't tell the difference between a literal blink of an eye and three-freaking-million years.
Creationism suggests it happened in an instance, it obviously didn't
Besides, genetic and palaeontological consensus puts the number more on 5-10 million.
Even if it was one million years it would debunk ID creationism, just like every other aspect of biology. Its a long time, not an instant
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc If you read the thread you would realize I referenced it to the geological time scale. Yes three million is a blink in the eye according to the geo time scale.
It may seem like a lot in terms of human life but it is not. We have already established the problem you have with reading comprehension. No one knows the exact time these are based on estimations. It could have taken even less.
I'm not sure what you mean by back up. This event really happened, you can check.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Yes three million is a blink in the eye according to the geo time scale."
Why don't you just compare it to the age of the universe? Then its even less time!
Do you see the flaw in that logic?
Three million years is three million years, plenty of time, especially compared to the information collected from the molecular clock.
And yes, both this and the remastered version are my original works
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcIncThe future of the fossil record
D Jablonski - Science, 1999 - sciencemagorg
... However, without a time machine to per- form reciprocal transplant experiments be- tween
Cambrian and modern seas ... alternatives to explain how long-term evo- lutionary trends arise in
a hierarchical system of taxa where the lowest ranks tend to be static: sorting among ...
Cited by 37 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 14 versions
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I'm not sure what you mean by back up." As in they have demonstrated that the necessary levels of evolution are more than plausible within that time frame given the concordance of information.
"This event really happened"
3-10 million year Cambrian Exlosion=happened
instantaneous supernatural creation event=didn't happen.
You can insult me if you like but you're just a creationist, it comes to be expected from your quaint and simple nature
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Think of how many generations would spawn in 3,000,000 years especaly considering these are mostly invertebrates."
Generations of what? Give me a list of the ancestors of all the phyla arising already already highly complex and allready within their own categories, and tell me how you have come to the conclusion that they are ancestral. I really don't think you understand this subject. I am speaking of the initial radiation event & do you understand what C Value paradox is?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Generations of what?" Generations of invertebrate species (plus our own Cambrian ancestors, the vertebrates). Surely since you contend that these species are so similar to those of today they would have a similar generation time, or are you inclined to believe they bred every few hundred years? Which still yields several hundred thousand generations.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Give me a list of the ancestors of all the phyla arising already already highly complex and allready within their own categories"
Funnily enough a YEC asked me this exact same question. My remastered video gives a reasonable list of the more striking Precambrian prerequisites.
Yes, I know what the C-value paradox is and how it is entirely irrelelvent to this discussion
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Generations of invertebrate species (plus our own Cambrian ancestors, etc
I am not speaking of todays animals. I was speaking of initial radiation event.
The mystery is not just living phyla appearing in several orders of magnitude globally & abruptly and already categorized, but were did they come from. If you have a detailed chart please provide it and the empirical evidence establishing ancestry. As of now all we have are hypothesis but if you know more then please cite.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I am not speaking of todays animals. I was speaking of initial radiation event."
Being vague doesn't help the case.
The Cambrian explosion is a diversification of basal representatives of recgonisable phyla over a 5-10 million year period preceded by basal representatives of recognisable supergroups and correlating with dramatic changes in geological and climatic upheaval.
Its a major evolutionary event. Geological instances are not literal instances.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "empirical evidence establishing ancestry."
Aside from the already prevalent comparative morphology and the temporal placement, what sort of 'emperical evidence' do you deem necessary or reasonably possible?
How do you reconcile the paradox of your silliness that a five thousand millenia event indicates an instantaneous supernatural creation?
its creazy!
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "My remastered video gives a reasonable list of the more striking Precambrian prerequisites."
Your reason is based on subjectivity and your reasoning is flawed by automatically calling them prerequisites with out empirical evidence to support this conclusion. Don't you believe in empirical science?
Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe less complex life developed into more complex life?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Your reason is based on subjectivity"
No, its based on comparative anatomy. Meanwhile yours is based off the political manifesto of an evangelist lawyer. Emperical science supports evolutionary theory.
"Do you believe less complex life developed into more complex life?"
Yes, in fact that usually the expected case. More complex life can sometimes evolve to a more (in some cases MUCH more) simple state. Just a matter of biological economics
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc If you look closer at the paper the above title is called HYPOTHESIS. CONT...
"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists"
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Soo basically what you are doing is underplaying the content of the article...and then quote a fleeting afterthought OF the article which you feel in one bastardtised interpretation lend credence to your views at the expense of ignoring the overall content?
Its bizzare seeing the way a creationist works.
Is it a credible article or not? It certainly has a lot of good data supporting its explanatory documentation of the Cambrian Explosion.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Being vague? I said initial radiation event twice. Do you know what radiation event I speaking of? Do you know what Cambrian radiation even means? I have no idea what your response to my thread has anything to do with the question.
"Meanwhile yours is based off the political manifesto of an evangelist lawyer"
When have I cited anything from an evangelist lawyer? Please cite any time I have used evangelist citation. Comparative anatomy. Lets compare your example please cite?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Do you know what Cambrian radiation even means?"
Yes I do, I also know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean instantaneous supernatural creation event of seperately conjured kinds. It means a rapid evolution and establishment of basic animal body plans within a 5-10 million year span of time.
"When have I cited from an evangelist lawyer?"
You are an ID creationist. Your campaign is to undermine science. The groundwork for the movement was laid out by said evangelist
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Empirical evidence has nothing to do with your personal subjective sense of what is and isn't reasonable or anyone else's. Thats why its called empirical science, because it takes all the guess work out of subjective reasonable possibilities.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Empirical evidence has nothing to do with your personal subjective sense of what is and isn't reasonable or anyone else's."
Okay, so how do we determine what IS a reasonable amount of emperical evidence and what IS said reasonable amount?
Because the current archive of emerical evidence, whether you deem it sufficient or not is unequivocally indicative of the evolution you parody and deny.
We have also taken out the unreasonable impossibilities like that you laud
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... This always happens when someone is challenged on this subject. People always revert back to philosophical semantic answers or questions.
benthemiester 1 year ago
"This always happens when someone is challenged on this subject. People always revert back to philosophical semantic answers or questions."
I was simply asking what you would deem to be reasonable evidence and how would you justify that as an objective level of criteria?
You were never going to answer any of the questions I answered because the minute you lay out criteria there's the potential to meet it and you can't take that risk if you are to keep believing what you want
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Praecambridium sigillum ("Sigil of the Precambrian") resembles a segmented trilobite-like arthropod, though many experts place it within the proarticulatan family Dickinsoniidae.
This is what you call empirical science? What happened to your diatribe concerning a consensus? Please show me the intermediates. Out of all these tons of fossils you claim, there has to be at least some intermediates.
This a opposition and is stated as such. Your research has a lot to be desired.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester CORECTION...This is a proposition and is stated as such.... not opposition.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "This is what you call empirical science?"
No Ben, that is a sumary of he conclusions drawn by the emperical science.
"Please show me the intermediates."
Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea I was dialoguing with Duane Gish. If you want the best examples of transitional forms you can find them in the Cambrian itself (Such as the lobopods). I was under the impression we were discussing primitive predecessors
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Out of all these tons of fossils you claim"
Ton of fossils? I can hardly think of six. The Precambrian fossil record is poor and fossil bearing strata is few and far between. Nearly the entire Ediacaran Ecosystem is on display 6km from me its only a few m^2
When the fossils get numerous, the case for evolution gets stronger. The more evidence there is the more it is in favour of evolution.
So your arguments is "there's so little evidence!". Pretty standard tactic.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "(as I said before the first chihuahuas were chihuahuas"
Can you please elaborate on this? Why do you think a Chihuahua analogy is relevant?
"When the fossils get numerous, the case for evolution gets stronger"
The initial Cambrian radiation event resulted numerous fossils in orders of magnitude.
"Precambrian fossil record is poor and fossil bearing strata is few and far between" Why is it?
Looks like your basing your evidence on evidence that doesn't exist. Very interesting.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Can you please elaborate on this? Why do you think a Chihuahua analogy is relevant?"
Because you're trying to argue that it is somehow profound that the first trilobite was a trilobite. Would it make any sense that the first trilobite *wasn't* a trilobite? Is wasn't the more evolved trilobites of the middle Cambrian-Permian.
"Why is it?" Because only a few square metres of Ediacaran fossil bearing rocks have ever been excavated. We do well with what we have
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Looks like your basing your evidence on evidence that doesn't exist."
No, unlike you I am basing the conclusions on evidence that DOES exist. Evolution is the only explanation for what we see in the fossil record.
What alternative is there?
Where we can find evidence, it supports evolution. Where we don't, you love to point it out.
What about evidence indicative of something else? Or positively against evolution?
Did trilobites appear suddenly out of nowhere?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
"Did trilobites appear suddenly out of nowhere?"
According to the fossil record they did. Their are some scientist who study Cambrian rock who believe this and they are not Christians.
We can hypothesis how this happened, & maybe someday these hypothesis may prove to be correct, but as of now, sometimes its ok and more honest to say, we just don't know.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "According to the fossil record they did."
According to the fossil record velvet worms haven't existed since the Cambrian and reappeared today.
Its very silly that you literally think that
"Their are some scientist who study Cambrian rock who believe this and they are not Christians."
They aren't credible either. All scientists worth their socks understand that they the product of evolution, and this includes christian ones (not that religion is relvevent)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "its ok and more honest to say, we just don't know."
But we do know that evolution has proven right all those other times gaps have appeared in the past and that it is ridiculous to assume that animals literally appeared fully formed out of nowhere when we have trace evidence of animals existing before them.
Your belief in the axiom of the ordained spontaneous becoming of living things is as silly as it has been since the classical age
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Submit it and begin it with "SEQUENCE CRITERIA"
Ill try to make this easy for u since you don't seem to know what transitional sequence is. I really cant blame you since they seem to be not existent.
Starting with Spriggina which has no mouth, anus or internal organs, you would gradually see these features starting to appear along with extremely sophisticated eyes.To say the record is poor is a cop out. The evidence is non existence. You can wish all you want. It wont change the fact.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I really cant blame you since they seem to be not existent."
Where the fossil record is strong there are many transitional sequences including that of our own hertiage.
Spriggina does in fact have a mouth and an anus. There is a gap followed by sparse trilobites with soft bodies and more reticulation, later the trilobites of the mid Cambrian which are more diverse and complex.
The origin of eyes appear to be a catalyst for the rapid evolution of the mid Cambrian
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc CONT....... Worm-like animal
Spriggina sp.
Precambrian (4.5 billion—543 million years ago)
Ediacara Hills, southern Australia
While these fossilized animals resemble worms, there is no evidence that they had the organs—such as a mouth, gut, or anus—that today’s worms have.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video... "Spriggina does in fact have a mouth and an anus"
The segments in many of the specimens (e.g. Spriggina) appear to be ... "Gutless " fauna have no mouth, digestive system or anus - apparently ... but the fact that some of his kingdom do not fit casts doubt on the whole hypothesis. ...
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester you misquoted the hell out of that! Spriggina is not descibed to be gutless or mouthless, instead riftia is. your ellipse goes over a whole PARAGRAPH where the subject is completely changed at least twice!
here: "Spriggina floundersi appears to be an errant annelid. It possesses definate cephalization (it has a well developed head) and a mouth. Specimens also show definate segmentation, with rare specimens possessing possible setae, and a through gut."
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Chihuahuas are not an evolved species. They were bred & their original ancestors were wolves. As we bred them through artificial selection they did not gain any new genetic information, they lost genetic information and are at the shallow end of the gene pool. Much of the wolf like features have been bred out of them and they are now degenerates of original stock. Natural selection does the same thing in the wild and ultimately genetic variation gets lost and you hit a brick wall.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Chihuahuas are not an evolved species."
They are an evolved SUBspecies. Canis Lupus is the evolved species and Canis is the evolved genus.
"they did not gain any new genetic information, they lost genetic information and are at the shallow end of the gene pool"
Obviously you don't understand how genetics works but that's for another time. Evolution does not rely on "information" however you define it, increasing (though this is often the case).
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Where the fossil record is strong there are many transitional sequences including that of our own heritage"
Another myth. I bet you couldn't even name a sequence and are probably not even aware of the controversy, even among anthro paleontologist. This is a subject filled with confusion, disagreement, misinformation, and sometimes even deliberate hoaxes.
We find sudden appearance followed by long periods of stasis and limited change. J Gould. Niles Eldridrige.
benthemiester 1 year ago
"We find sudden appearance followed by long periods of stasis and limited change. J Gould. Niles Eldridrige."
Gould and Edridge have pointed out the way creationists distort punctuated equilibrium and point out that transitional sequences are replete between higher taxa. The sudden appearence and stasis is limited to the species level and even then there are a small number of sequences linking species rather than higher taxa.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc How does your PM prove they had guts and anus? Did you read the last sentence of your own citation.
"The sudden appearence and stasis is limited to the species level etc"
Sudden appearance relates to major groups of animals. Speciation is much more feasible and we can mimic this through cultivation and artificial selection through breeding. You are simply ignorant on this subject. I have backed my claims and will not continue to repeat myself. Please do more serious research.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "How does your PM prove they had guts and anus? "
It doesn't Ben, it proves you were lying when you claimed the source said they were gutless. I did read the last sentence though you either didn't read any of it or lied about what it said after reading it.
"Sudden appearance relates to major groups of animals."
No it doesn't.
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."-Gould in response to IDists
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I have backed my claims"
You have claimed that genetic variability drops when diversification increases-which is wrong.
You claimed that Gould and Eldridge asserted that sudden appearence occurs at higher taxa-you were lying
You claimed that Spriggina was gutless and tried to back it up by quoting an outdated source and misquoting another one.
You haven't a single valid objection to evolution Ben, nor any objective motivation
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc What are you talking about? the rest of the citation does nothing to help your case. Outdated source? You were offering citations from 1981. Your a very amusing fellow to say the least.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "the rest of the citation does nothing to help your case."
It certainly does nothig to take away from my case. At worst it is irrelevent to the case entirely.
"Outdated source? You were offering citations from 1981."
Which is more recent than your source, and still cited without being overturned. Outdated doesn't just mean old, it also means discredited.
Like your arguments against evolution
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Your opinion means nothing because you have nothing to back it up.
Are you even familiar with the term loss of genetic variation?
Spriggina is gutless and you have nothing to back up your claim but a never ending mantra.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Are you even familiar with the term loss of genetic variation?"
Yes, I am also familiar enough with the subject to know that genetic variation also increases. I also understand that genetic variation and information are two entirely different things though you seem to be trying to assert they are the same.
"Spriggina is gutless"
That doesn't appear to be what paleontologists concur with Ben. I gave a proper source, you didn't
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcIncFrom (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.): "...the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species...Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives." (p. 749.) .......
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video... "The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." (p. 753.)......
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video... A localized population...suddenly appear(s) on the scene and then continue(s) essentially unchanged until [they] become(s) extinct." (Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, 2001 p. 63.)
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Ben, you have tried to pride yourself with attempting to defend creationism honestly, this case has been undermined consistently throughout but that you are now resorting to quote mining is a ridiculously blatant admission of your guilt and disinterest in honesty.
Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr both have delivered exhaustive accounts on transitional forms and the very books your mention document the more striking ones.
You can't have read the books without knowing this
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I have always quoted from the literature I never said these men were creationist & anyone can claim a transitional species, but when you look at the evidence much closer you find that many assumptions are made. U can find others in the same field that disagree, e.g. horse whale transition. Mis categorizing fossils is much more common than you might think. The discontinuity of the fossil record is well known and is in the literature, but there are many different hypotheses out there.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I have always quoted from the literature"
No Ben, as I pointed out to you several times you have quoted from creationist doctoring of literature. The literature does not even implicitly support your position.
Transitional fossils exist and continuties always exist where the fossil record is more replete. No practising paleontologist contests this nor evolution itself.
That's why you quoted from genesissafaries rather than directly from Mayr's book
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I never said the consensus accepts my position or view. Most accept the ToE and many claims are made. There is a big difference between claims and empirical evidence. For every supposed transitional there is dispute, disagreement or hoax from everything to Ida, Lucy, Archaeoraptor, equine, Archaeopteryx, Piltdown to the wales tale.
If someone could turn these hypothesis into conclusive evidence there would be a Noble prize out there for such a person.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Its noBEL prize Ben and there is no category for the discovery of fossils, so many transitional fossils are found each year it would be impossible to fairly judge anyway.
No reputable scientist disagrees that Lucy, Ida, Archaeopteryx and the protocetaceans are transitional forms, no scientists ever argued that archaeoraptor *was* a transtional form, Piltdown man was disproved by other transitional forms and the work of evolutionary anthropologists.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I never said the consensus accepts my position or view."
The reason behind this is that your position is wrong, refuted and downright childish.
Emperical evidence does support evolution and "claims" are merely descriptions of this evidence. As pointed out there is no dispute that transitional forms exist and that the volume of them is a compelling argument for evolution.
There has never been any evidence fossiliferous or otherwise indicative of your silly pareidolia
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
"No reputable scientist disagrees that Lucy, Ida, Archaeopteryx and the protocetaceans are transitional forms"
I suppose the term reputable is determined by whether they agree or not. These caveats are always kind of amusing.
"Piltdown man was disproved by other transitional forms"
This one is news to me. Its BS but very original.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "I suppose the term reputable is determined by whether they agree or not." No Ben, its determined by how they are able to substantiate their claims, and they have.
"This one is news to me. Its BS but very original."
Ben, perhaps if you did your research outsite of creationist sources you would know that Weiner, Oakley and Le Gros Clark were responsible for the evidence revealing it to be a forgery. All studied and accepted evolution
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "so many transitional fossils are found each year"
This mantra is one of my personal favorites.
"it would be impossible to fairly judge anyway"
Very interesting, "it would be impossible to fairly judge" yet you have already made judgment on all these many claims that you cant even name. For every supposed transition there is dispute and disagreement. Archaeopteryx is not the oldest bird found, and not all believe in the Dino to Bird hypothesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "For every supposed transition there is dispute and disagreement"
Not on their status as a transitional species. Disputes, if any are over their collateral placement
There is now no notable controversy over the fact that birds descended from (and are) dinosaurs. The counter arguments presented by other scientists have been addressed and refuted by subsequent findings.
No paleontologist would argue transitional forms have not and are not being found
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The term transitional has changed over time. In Darwin's day a transitional meant a fossil supported by a series of other fossils showing gradual stages of development (we never found those) Today any extinct or extant animal is called a transitional. This is a case were the theory is the proof regardless of the lack of evidence. This is called circular reasoning. The "hopeful monster" "punctuated equilibrium" are all more or less hypothesis that try to explain the lack of transitions.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The term transitional has changed over time. In Darwin's day a transitional meant a fossil supported by a series of other fossils showing gradual stages of development (we never found those)"
If you researched outside genesissafaries you'd know we have in fact found those but the definition hasn't changed. Even Darwin made the definition clear in his book.
Besides, even if the definition had changed, we have found transitionals that conform to the strictest definitions
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The "hopeful monster" "punctuated equilibrium" are all more or less hypothesis that try to explain the lack of transitions."
Ben, nobody of any scientific worth works by saltationism and as I pointed out Gould and Eldridge themselves (as well as Mayr) made clear that transitional forms are abundant. Punctuated Equilibrium is concerned with populational speciation within small groups and so often representatives of these daughter species don't fosilise.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester A transitional fossils is one that shows the traits of different 'kinds' of animals or plants. A dinosaur with feathers, a land animal with a whale's ear, a fish with legs. They have all been found.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ? The only problem with that paradigme, is that pakicetus is now known to be a land animal based on more recent fossil discoveries. The notion that Pakicetus had ears that allowed it to hear under water, is a bunch of BS. Unfortunately many still repeat this nonsens. Their ears and bodies were developed for terrestrial life above water, not in the water. Proto Avis is 75 MY older than archaeopteryx.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester So show something that proves evolution didn't happen. Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with feathers, a transitional fossil no matter what other evidence is found. One species did not have to die for another to live, evolution is not a ladder. We still have fish and clams, they did not go away just because reptiles evolved.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I agree, many Darwinist ignore the evidence and stick to the assumptions of the theory. If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional. If you have an animal once thought to be adapted for aquatic life, and the belief that it was aquatic proved it as a transitional, only to find years later that it was not aquatic, yet is still thought to be transitional, then you have circular reasoning, and more of a philosophy than a science.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester What assumptions of the theory ?!? Everything to you is an assumption. The fossils are real. What assumptions?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The first question is a little puzzling to me. Anyone can figure this one out, even a child. Its very simple just put your mind to it.
I never said that fossils are assumed. I'm not sure where your getting this stuff from. If your more interested in the extended synthesis, then see my video posted, entitled "Will the real theory of evolution please stand up"? The limitations of the current Darwinian synthesizes are now being questioned and challenged. This is a fact not a fairy tale.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester ''current Darwinian synthesizes'' Darwin is not current, he is dead. His ideas are 150 years old. The theory of evolution is updated all the time, it shows how the proven fact of evolution happens.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ''current Darwinian synthesizes'' Darwin is not current"
Maybe its you who doesn't understand that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is the Darwinian Synthesis. Look it up.
"Wrong, fish are the grandfather to reptiles and fish are still here today" (speculation)
If you were to find a reptile that was millions of years older than the supposed transition from fish to reptile, then the supposed transition would be false. I urge you to research the subject a little better.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@gregrutz It can also be referred to as the neo Darwinian synthesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional."
That's a stupid statement. If a cousin lineage to archaeopteryx experiences a faster rate of evolution and ultimately leads to "birds" while archaeopteryx branches off and experiences little to no evolution, there is simply no reason why you couldn't have birds predating {some} archaeopteryx fossils.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Your statement makes no sense. I'm not even sure how to respond. Who said proto avis is a cousin to anything, and how could it be a cousin if it shows up 75 MY earlier with even more bird like features. No one has made a phylogenetic relationship. In fact, proto avis predates the same type of dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendent of. Even with out these factors, your statement makes no sense.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Part 1)
"your statement makes no sense."
Try thinking about it for more than 2 seconds.
"how could it be a cousin if it shows up 75 MY earlier with even more bird like features."
All you did was make the same stupid statement using different words.
Let's say Archaeopteryx was the common ancestor but a subgroup became isolated and evolved separately. During the next 75 million years, the subgroup evolved into birds but Archaeopteryx just kind of plodded along with...
->
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome "Let's say Archaeopteryx was the common ancestor but a subgroup became isolated and evolved separately. During the next 75 million years, the subgroup evolved into birds but Archaeopteryx just kind of plodded" etc.
That makes even less sense. Arch was supposed to be the transition from dino to bird. If we find a real bird that predates arch & the type dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendant of, that means at best the evolution of birds has to be set back another 75MY.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"If we find a real bird that predates arch & the type dinosaurs they were supposed to be descendant of.."
Again, you're making the same mistake. The fossil record doesn't necessarily contain the "oldest" Archaeopteryx and the "oldest" dinosaur and the "oldest" bird. If we knew that to be the case, you would have a point. But since we only have a small sampling, there's no way to make that conclusion and your assertion fails.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome The fossil record doesn't necessarily contain the "oldest" Archaeopteryx and the "oldest" dinosaur and the "oldest" bird"
These are based on time lines agreed to by an consensus among evolutionary paleontologist. They're not my rules. Again, this deals with setting the bird evolutionary time line back 75 MY. I dont see why this is so hard for you. If you want to imagine something thats not present in the fossil record until 75 MY later, then thats your choice.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Part 2)
...no significant changes and ultimately went extinct (after the subgroup had already evolved into birds)
Also, I didn't say there was a confirmed relationship. That doesn't matter. I was merely pointing out that just because some bird fossils predate Archaeopteryx fossils doesn't justify your assertion that Archaeopteryx {cannot} be transistional between dinosaurs and birds.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome No one in the paleontological world is making the claim you are. Again you dont seem to understand and still continue to think arch could be an ancestor of something that predates it.
I think your making yourself look very stupid.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Damn, this 500 letter limit is annoying.
"No one in the paleontological world is making the claim you are."
We must be reading different books or I need to dumb down my example even further. Evolutionary theory most resembles a bush with groups spawning subgroups spawning subgroups.
"Again you dont seem to understand and still continue to think arch could be an ancestor of something that predates it."
Apparently you still aren't taking the time to understand my example.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"I think your making yourself look very stupid."
It may help if you point out specific flaws in my example.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Here's another attempt. "a" is the dinosaur ancestor, "b" is Arch, "c" is bird. The capital "A", "B", and "C" are the known fossils. Do you now see how a bird fossil can be older that the Arch and dinosaur fossils?
--aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
\-bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb \-cccCcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome
Damn youtube messed up my diagram!
--aaaaaaaaaaaaaAaaaa \-bbbbbbBbbbbbbbbb \-cCcccccccc
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Comment removed
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Comment removed
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Comment removed
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome What your having a mental block on is, that Proto Avis predates the type of dino that it is supposed to have evolved from, and your still trying to put Arch before Proto. Look at your own sequence, You wrote it not me. You placed arch as B when the fossil record sequence makes it C. You see, C comes after B,. If you dont even know your ABC's? This is probably the most silly discussion I have ever had with anyone on this is subject. I even gave citation. Your an idiot.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"What your having a mental block on is, that Protoavis predates the type of dino."
I understood your claim the first time. You're trying to assert that no Archs existed until after Protoavis (which just happens to be a highly controversial specimen) existed. If that were true, it would certainly be a problem, however, your assertions don't appear to have anything remotely resembling firm support in the scientific community.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome You realized how silly your first argument was, and now your trying to throwout anything that sticks to the wall. There will always be those who do not want to believe it when they think an old accepted axiom been challenged. The Lucy fossil was extremely fragmented, and some of the bones were found miles away from the others, and in completely different geological strata. Yet no one complained about it being fragmented. Same goes for Pakicetus when first discovered.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome
His article goes on to say........
On the other hand, Witmer (2002) argued that Protoavis represents a temporal range extension
for Coelurosauria, which helps to provide some circumstantial support for the dinosaurian origin of birds.
It seems he doesn't mind as long as it kind of supports dino origin.
cont..
A recent report of possible Triassic avian footprints
merits attention, as the tracks show a clearly preserved
hallux, which is currently known only in birds.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
I could not get Youtube to properly display my diagram. It kept deleting the carriage returns and indentation for some bizarre reason. I was trying to show the Proto fossil as oldest, followed by dino, followed by Arch.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome "I was trying to show the Proto fossil as oldest, followed by dino, followed by Arch"
What do you think I have been saying all along? Thats why I challenged your ABC diagram that was the exact opposite. Where you had dino A then arch B followed by Proto C. You should really be careful who you call stupid next time.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Where you had dino A then arch B followed by Proto C"
Ben, we KNOW that there are feathered dinosaurs older than Archaeopteryx (Epidexipteryx and Anchiornis)
Until there is any evidence corroborating the fragments that have been called Protoavis (So far nothing in over a decade) then you have little justification in insisting it to the extent that you do considering the overwhelming evidence in favour of the traditional model
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Are you willing to admit you were wrong? You even cited Witmer that agrees with me, that if this is true, (which he admits, many in paleontology do believe it is) that it would set back the evolution of birds 75MY according to the accepted time line. Please tell me you are willing to admit you were wrong about that ABC BS.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Witmer.......... Many workers, however, have argued that it is a chimera
belonging to two different species. For this reason, it has
neither been widely accepted nor seriously considered as
a Triassic bird (Witmer 2001). Although some workers
have accepted Protoavis as a bird, and argued that it
would disapprove the theropod relationships of birds.
It seems even he admits many agree that it is a bird. You gave the implication that Chatterjee was alone on this.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "You gave the implication that Chatterjee was alone on this."
Even Chatterjee has pointed out that that both Protoavis and Archaeopteryx are both transitional fossils. Protoavis, even if genuine, which despite 11 years has not been corroberated poses no problem for the evolution of birds.
And Ben you are basing your whole interpretation of the Extended Synthesis off Mazur's dishonesty. MIT's statement in no way resembles the interpretation you are trying to pose.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Protoavis specimens have been located in the Upper Triassic Dockum Group sediments of West Texas. Protoavis predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years pushing the origin of birds to the Late Triassic and is considered the oldest known bird (Chatterjee 1999).
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"Protoavis specimens have been located in the Upper Triassic Dockum Group..."
Talkorigins provides a decent response to this.
talkorigins(dot)org(dot)faqs(dot)archaeopteryx(dot)info.html#protoavis
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome Chris Nedin isn't even a scientist or even amateur paleontologist. He refuse to believe that Arch is or has been considered to be a transitional fossil, and furthermore, he doesn't even attempt to make the same silly pissing in the wind argument that you were trying to make. Why you even cited this Talk Origins article is beyond me.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
P1a)
"Protoavis predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years pushing the origin of birds to the Late Triassic and is considered the oldest known bird (Chatterjee 1999)."
Chatterjee tried to claim it as the oldest known bird. Unless your definition of "is considered" happens to be whatever Chatterjee said in 1999, you're misrepresenting the confidence in Protoavis. Therefore, I'll just ask what is the general consensus within the scientific community on Protoavis?
-->cont
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@benthemiester
P2a)
Are there any scientists arguing that Protoavis is most likely a chimera? What do other scientists such as Witmer, Paul, Ostrom, Wellnhofer, Chiappe, Feduccia, Sereno, Hunt, Renesto, Nesbitt have to say about it?
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Who said proto avis is a cousin to anything"
Nobody, evidence suggests it isn't a genuine specimen.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... The burden of proof is not on me or anyone else to prove macro evolution didn't happen. The burden is on those who are trying to prove it did. The modern synthesis will have to be revised and extended, and is now in that process. Its called the extended synthesis. The limitations of the current Darwinian synthesis are now being challenged & questioned, & the assumptions of the theory are being relaxed, even by many evolutionist like M. Pigliucci and S. Newman
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Darwinian is 150 years out of date. The theory as to how evolution changes all the time, the process of evolution is a fact, macro evolution is proven, DNA was the last proof needed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@benthemiester "the assumptions of the theory are being relaxed, even by many evolutionist like M. Pigliucci and S. Newman"
Wrong. As I have repeatedly pointed out Suzan Mazur is a liar. Not just me but Massimo Pigluicci himself (and in geat detail)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Who said anything about Mazur? Calm down, your going to give yourself a heart attack.
MIT Press
Most of the contributors to Evolution - the Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure-
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional"
WHY NOT?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "If you find birds predating archaeopteryx, then obviously archaeopteryx cannot be transitional"
WHY NOT?"
You seem to be having a hard time with this. Thats like saying, why can't you be older than your grandparents? If you cant figure out why you cant be older than your grandparent, then there is nothing I can do to help you understand. Maybe theres a mental block. I dont know.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Wrong, fish are the grandfather to reptiles and fish are still here today. archaeopteryx did not have to go away just because some of them evolved into true birds. You can't prove evolution wrong if you don't even know how it works.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@benthemiester "You seem to be having a hard time with this. Thats like saying, why can't you be older than your grandparents?"
No Ben, it is like saying that you can't have a cousin that looks like a grandparent.
Besides, Protoavis is an overly fragmentary (and possible composite) number of bones which has not had any supportive finds since its discovery 27 years ago. Even the best case scenario for you (that it is a genuine specimen) concludes bird evolution happened
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "pakicetus is now known to be a land animal based on more recent fossil discoveries."
Yes, it is a land animal with a whale's ear structure which is exactly what Gregutz said. It is not adapted to the water and that is not being claimed.
The fact it is a whale adapted for life on land makes it transitional.
Protoavis is not a strong fossil to build any kind of case off of.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "(Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, 2001 p. 63.)"
What follows is from the exact same book, on the exact same page...
Fortunately since 1859 the fossil record has improved dramatically and we now have a large number of cases where the gradual change of a species into a derived species can be followed.
This immediately precedes the quote you mined and changed the context of. Obviously you didn't read the book and cropped the quote from a creationist website
ProcInc 1 year ago
@benthemiester "This is a subject filled with confusion, disagreement, misinformation, and sometimes even deliberate hoaxes."
Perhaps according to Marvin Lubenow.
Deliberate hoaxes? Do I smell a 50 year old done-to-death argument coming on?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Because you're trying to argue that it is somehow profound that the first trilobite was a trilobite. Would it make any sense that the first trilobite *wasn't* a trilobite? Is wasn't the more evolved trilobites of the middle Cambrian-Permian"
Again what is the chihuahua references are you suggesting Chihuahuas are less evolved? I have no idea what the analogy means if you cant be clear. You know that diversification causes a loss of genetic variability over time don't you?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Again what is the chihuahua references are you suggesting Chihuahuas are less evolved?"
I am pointing out that the first of x by definition is an x. The first chihuahua was a chihuahua but it had ancestors ad they weren't.
Its so clear even a creationist could understand if they allow themselves to.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... "When the fossils get numerous, the case for evolution gets stronger"
According to this logic the evidence for macro evolution is weak because all living things today only represent about 2 % percent of all living things during Cambrian period. Living things are now less numerous. Fossils are relevant because they represented once living things. Please answer these points honestly.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "According to this logic the evidence for macro evolution is weak because all living things today only represent about 2 % percent of all living things during Cambrian period."
Life today is far more diverse than the Cambrian (less recent common ancestor). You need to better elaborate what this sentence means, it makes no sense.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc"You demanded that I purchase papers myself to read them. I ask the same of you in that case"
I challenge u to show me the thread were u asked for the full study, in fact I can show you the thread where you thought the abstract that I sent was the full study.
"Ton of fossils? I can hardly think of six" "Ediacaran Ecosystem is on display 6km from me its only a few m^2"
In your video you said..... "there were loads, 50 million years worth"
U have no right to call anyone dishonest.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcIncRespond to this video...By the way, the paragraph I quoted earlier was not from an evangelist, it was from citation that you said validated ToE....Just in case you missed it, cont.......
"despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists"
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "it was from citation that you said validated ToE"
Ir certainly successfully relies on evolutionary theory
"despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists"
So he says 'some' Neo-Darwinists so its not even all of them and by modern neodarwinists he doesn't mean all acceptors of evolutionary theory.
Hardly supportive of your own silly views that still claim that 3 million years= a literal instant of creation.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Your second citation says nothing about sprigging, and I have already cited that many experts don't agree with the conclusions of your first citation. You ignored that. Secondly, the oldest of Trilobites belongs to order Redlichiida. There were many different types of trilobite.They had extremely complex body plans and especially eyes.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Your second citation says nothing about sprigging"
sprigging? Did you mean Spriggina? Yes it does, just not in the abstract...which is apparently all you read
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Actually the earliest trilobites still resemble the soft bodied worms of their progeny"
Thats nonsense you haven't even established a link. And they look like trilobites. You can find them on display and they look nothing like worms. Are you just making this stuff up? I have a feeling that your probably an average decent fellow like most, but you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever met. You have provided nothing concrete only proposals and speculation.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Ben, I have established a link (for further information check out R Birket-Smith - Zool. Jb. Anat, [1981]). I even asked what you would consider to be a reasonable amount of evidence and why and you avoided the question for fear of it being met.
THAT is intellectual dishonesty.
When you say they don't like worms, are you only referring to annelid worms?
Spriggina, for instance is a worm. It looks far more like a trilobite than the image you apparently have in your head (Earthworm etc)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals. Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features. "
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species"
He has made admirable contributions to evolutionary biology. He's not really any help to you. His challenges are interesting but in a minority and the implications of his speculations even if entirely true do not help the creationist argument
ProcInc 1 year ago
"Yes it does, just not in the abstract...which is apparently all you read'
Well then PM it & lets take a look. U didn't even know what the Modern Synthesis was, much less what an abstract was until a couple of days ago when I pointed out the difference when you thought I sent the full study. You didn't even know that ERV's had important function or that Coyne wasn't an evolution development biologist or what the term even meant which is common knowledge among most who debate this subject.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You regard yourself quite highly but it is unwarranted. If you had any decent argument against evolutionary theory you could publish it to peer review.
and I did know what evo devo was, it was the subject of my last video and that Jerry Coyne was an ecologist.
You're just a silly creationist with the usual tactics. You can't defend your own position and try your hardest to poke holes in the one legitimate unifying theory of biology
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video...Spriggina's affinity is currently unknown; it has been classified as an annelid worm, a rangeomorph-like frond, Proarticulata, and an arthropod, perhaps related to the trilobites. Lack of known segmented legs or limbs may make an arthropod classification premature.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc cont.....We don't see any indication of organs. We see no legs, no mouths, no anuses, no digestive tracts, nothing to suggest they were animals. We have to stop shoehorning them into categories of modern animals." Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as Vendobionts. The fossils show no characteristics indicating the ability to eat or digest food, but may have absorbed sunlight or chemical nutrients direct from the ocean water.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@ProcInc The second citation you gave speaks of the oldest known trilobite. A fully formed trilobite already extremely complicated. It says nothing about its ancestry. Not sure why you even quoted it?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The second citation you gave speaks of the oldest known trilobite. A fully formed trilobite already extremely complicated. It says nothing about its ancestry. Not sure why you even quoted it?"
It's not "fully formed", it's a "soft bodied" trilobite, an intermediate between spriggina-like soft worms and the hard bodied trilobite families we are familiar with.
It's also found prior to the Cambrian Explosion spreading out the appearence of phyla (cont)
ProcInc 1 year ago
(cont2) "It says nothing about its ancestry"
They themselves are ancestors of the modestly more complex and diverse species of Cambrian Trilobite (themselves more basal than the later trilobites up to their tragic extinction in the Permian). Even in the abstract it discusses the evolution of the trilobite traits in relation to their embryonic ontogeny.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... TRILOBITE ORIGIN
"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.
That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins"
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites"
If they're trilobites, they're trilobites. The first chihuahuas were chihuahuas
"and they do not look like anything else."
Actually the earliest trilobites still resemble the soft bodied worms of their progeny. They have only the basic criteria to be trilobites
ProcInc 1 year ago