Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

Creationist VP-elect of the USA

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#141  Postby newolder » Sep 23, 2018 1:36 pm

Here's a model of the T.Rex gait by Andy Wright from 2016. What "similarity with a chicken"?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7402
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#142  Postby theropod » Sep 23, 2018 4:17 pm

Yawn:

Been there. Done that. Check please.

LINK

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#143  Postby newolder » Sep 23, 2018 4:45 pm

If that post is aimed at me then I'm surprised you haven't posted about your time machine in the physics sub-forum. Perhaps you will, sometime earlier than now. :dunno: The link to a post of yours from 2011 is an interesting and educational read but I did not find the section that discussed a youtube posted in 2016 about the gait of T.Rex that shows no obvious similarity with the gait of a chicken. :scratch:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7402
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#144  Postby theropod » Sep 23, 2018 4:55 pm

No, aimed at the most fresh of denialist of the dinosaur to bird links. Yawning because it’s the same song with new lyrics.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#145  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 23, 2018 7:43 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:In the meantime, with reference to this assertion:

Wortfish wrote:Evolutionists disingenously like to claim that macroevolution just means speciation.


I'd like to know precisely which observable interactions and phenomena are purportedly being "omitted" or "ignored" by evolutionary biologists with respect to the term "macroevolution". I suspect I won't see a straight answer to this, but who knows, for once I could be mistaken ...


Some evolutionary biologists claim microevolution means change within a species whereas macroevolution means change leading to a new species.


Citation for this?

Wortfish wrote:But such a shallow and cautious definition would mean that nearly all creationists accept macroevolution.


Do tell us all why that definition is "shallow and cautious". Preferably with reference to some actual biology to support this assertion.

Wortfish wrote:However, I think macroevolution really refers to the emergence of new families, orders and phyla as we look back in time.


And here we have a prime example of the follies that creationists routinely indulge in. Which centres upon the fact that they treat the categories of Linnaean taxonomy as decress from on high, that the biosphere must somehow conform to, as opposed to cataloguing categories which humans formulated in order to organise the data and make sense of it.

Indeed, one of the central problems with Linnaean taxonomy, is that its categories are ranked categories, whilst modern phylogenetic analysis recognises that there are no 'ranks' in biology at all. Unfortunately, until someone comes up with a better system than the one Linnaeus provided, we're stuck with using it, warts and all, but no one in modern biology thinks higher-ranked Linnaean taxa are prescriptive. Once again, they're treated as simply descriptive, a distinction that creationists routinely demonstrate an inability to understand. An example of the hilarity that arises from Linnaean taxonomy being ranked, hits taxonomists square in the face the moment one considers tetrapods, which sees the old Linnean classes of Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves and Mammalia now recognised as sub-clades of Tetrapodomorpha, which itself is a subclade of Sarcopterygii, which is itself a SubClass in Linnaean taxonomy (though a phylogenetic revision of the fishes re-establishes Sarcopterygii as a Class). Except that in a ranked taxonomic system, a given taxonomic rank is only supposed to give rise to taxa of lower rank. Matters become even worse when one realises that Reptilia is itself no longer monophyletic (Aves is now properly a sub-taxon of Reptilia, as is Mammalia), and for that matter, whilst all modern amphibians are Lissamphibia, the Class Amphibia includes two extinct SubClasses, one of which was the ancestor of Reptilia.

Indeed, modern data has led to wholesale revision of the old Class Pisces, which is now discarded as a paraphyletic taxon, and fish now have an extensive phylogenetic classification scheme, arising from the large body of work performed by Willi Hennig and others. But that scheme still uses Linnaean nomenclature, simply because nothing better has been devised yet.

Admittedly, Linnaeus didn't have access to modern phylogenetic data, and provided us with a taxonomic scheme that served us very well indeed until the advent of said modern phylogenetic data. But Linnaean taxonomy is clearly a product of its time, one that's being pressed into service for cataloguing purposes until a phylogenetically grounded replacement scheme is devised. Even with those provisos in place, however, Linnaeus himself never intended his classification scheme to be prescriptive, but descriptive, as his surviving correspondence at the University of Uppsala makes clear. Indeed, the mere fact that taxonomists instituted a process of taxonomic revision as far back as the days of Fabricius, in order to reflect better the state of the biological data, on its own points to this, before one delves into Linnaeus' own thoughts. Some organisms have been subject to taxonomic revision to the point where they have over two dozen junior synonyms accompanying the currently accepted valid taxon.

Plus, modern biologists understand that the emergence of groupings that can be classified as phyla, were possible in the distant past, when bauplans were simpler and less specialised. It's somewhat harder for such a major departure to arise from a modern, much more specialised and derived basis, though not, I suspect, impossible.

Quite simply, the higher taxonomic divisions, are divisions humans formulated for their cataloguing convenience, and at bottom, nothing more. Though I'm familiar with the manner in which not only creationists, but other religious fundamentalists, have a habit of treating words in a book as somehow magically dictating to reality how it behaves, regardless of whether or not reality pisses itself laughing at such hubris.

Moving on ...

Wortfish wrote:
Not all of them. I remember dealing over at TalkRational with one Ray Martinez, who asserted that species were fixed and immutable. Though I note with interest, that when pressed on the matter of what form this 'magic barrier' to speciation took, he was typically evasive in standard creationist manner. I also had much fun parading a range of fancy goldfish before him, in order to demonstrate that his "species are fixed and immutable" assertion was horseshit.


Ken Ham and AiG accept and embrace speciation.


Do they? Should I care about this? Or should I, more properly, be suspicious of their trying to force-fit biological data into a doctrinal framework, for the purpose of propping up pre-scientific mythology?

Wortfish wrote:
Oh, you mean the made up shit they conjured up, to try and avoid having 2½ million species crowded into a wooden barge?


The "Kinds" diversified and speciated from a common ancestor of the particular kind. There was a dog-kind, cat-kind, worm-kind etc.


Er, do come back when creationists have something other than a morass of comedy fabrications, with respect to the matter of defining "kind" ... which none of them have been able to do.

Wortfish wrote:
Care to provide a definition of "created kinds"? Only I've yet to see a creationist who could do this successfully. For example, Jonathan Sarfati waded in on this one, with the following piece of hilarity

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.


So, Sarfati asserts above that [1] organisms that can interbreed are purportedly of the same "kind", but then goes on to assert that [2] er, organisms that can't interbreed could also be of the same "kind". Which leads most of us who paid attention in class, reaching for this image in response:

Image



Zebras and horses are of the same "kind". It is possible for them to interbreed but not with sterile offspring.


Care to rework that last sentence into something resmbling conventionally parseable English?

Of course, if you're trying to assert here, that being able to produce offspring, sterile or not, is a diagnostic criterion for "kind", then you have a problem, because there are documented instances of closely related species that will not produce offspring of any sort if you hybridise them. Indeed, I've alighted upon an example of an organism that uses sex as a biological weapon to eliminate food competitors, that provides a prime example of this. Hesperocimex cochimiensis and Hesperocimex sonorensis are two species of Hemipteran bugs, that compete for a food source - they're blood feeding parasites of owls in their natural habitat. It's been found that if a male H. cochimiensis inseminates a female H. sonorensis, the result is that the H. sonorensis female dies from a massive immune reaction to the H. cochimiensis sperm. Just to add to the fun inolved, like numerous other Cimicid bugs, these species aso indulge in hypodermic insemination, which adds its own spice to the proceedings.

Bit difficult to produce offspring, if the female's response to insemination is to curl up and die as if she's been hit with a nerve gas attack. :)

Another fun example from the world of invertebrate zoology, is provided by Skipper butterflies (Family Hesperiidae). Members of the Genus Erynnis have been documented for some time as possessing asymmetric genitalia, making them stand out from the majority of other Lepidoptera, in which the genitalia are bilaterally symmetric. However, two American species in the Genus, Erynnis funeralis and Erynnis propertius, have secondarily re-acquired symmetry in their genitalia, which means they're now mechanically incompatible for hybridisation with other members of the Genus in their locality.

I really love the way biology repeatedly pisses all over creationist pretensions ... :D
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#146  Postby Wortfish » Sep 23, 2018 10:17 pm

newolder wrote:Here's a model of the T.Rex gait by Andy Wright from 2016. What "similarity with a chicken"?


nice. it walks on its toes like a chicken.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#147  Postby newolder » Sep 23, 2018 10:46 pm

Wortfish wrote:
newolder wrote:Here's a model of the T.Rex gait by Andy Wright from 2016. What "similarity with a chicken"?


nice. it walks on its toes like a chicken.

The manner of walking (gait) of a chicken involves more associated head movement than the T.Rex.

I'm sure you'll disagree. :roll:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7402
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#148  Postby Macdoc » Sep 23, 2018 11:05 pm

When you hear this all night you may think you are in Jurassic park....

and they sure hunt food like a pack of raptors

Last edited by Macdoc on Sep 23, 2018 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17316
Age: 74
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#149  Postby theropod » Sep 23, 2018 11:07 pm

Extant birds do not use their femur in the same way that nonavian dinosaus did. If the chicken video were of a chicken skeleton, and a side by side gate with the T. rex skeleton were shown, the difference would be obvious. The T. rex femur could be seen to swing across a far wider arc than the femur in any extant bird. While the chicken and tyrannosaur both employ their feet in similar manners there is a subtle difference here as well. Chickens have a descended and expressed hallux (rear facing digit) which bears weight, whereas tyrannosaurs rarely left traces where this digit is seen because it is greatly reduced. This means the tyrannosaur could not easily tilt back on its feet without balance issues. Think of T. rex as being shark-like, and moving forward most of the time.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#150  Postby The_Metatron » Sep 24, 2018 12:02 am

laklak wrote:You do know why his screen name is theropod, dont you?

I know, eh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#151  Postby Wortfish » Sep 24, 2018 3:17 pm

Calilasseia wrote:

Citation for this?


"Macroevolution is speciation": http://www.cnah.org/khs/khs_pubs/KHSN_119.pdf

Do tell us all why that definition is "shallow and cautious". Preferably with reference to some actual biology to support this assertion.


I mean that such a definition in no way implies universal common descent. It just means that a group or population can become reproductively isolated.

Quite simply, the higher taxonomic divisions, are divisions humans formulated for their cataloguing convenience, and at bottom, nothing more. Though I'm familiar with the manner in which not only creationists, but other religious fundamentalists, have a habit of treating words in a book as somehow magically dictating to reality how it behaves, regardless of whether or not reality pisses itself laughing at such hubris.


The only taxonomic division that is properly defined is the species. All others are arbitrary.

Do they? Should I care about this? Or should I, more properly, be suspicious of their trying to force-fit biological data into a doctrinal framework, for the purpose of propping up pre-scientific mythology?


Of course. Because if a pari from every species around today was on board the Ark, it would have sunk! Not so with the kinds.

Er, do come back when creationists have something other than a morass of comedy fabrications, with respect to the matter of defining "kind" ... which none of them have been able to do.


Do you deny that there exists man-kind?

Care to rework that last sentence into something resmbling conventionally parseable English? Of course, if you're trying to assert here, that being able to produce offspring, sterile or not, is a diagnostic criterion for "kind", then you have a problem, because there are documented instances of closely related species that will not produce offspring of any sort if you hybridise them. Indeed, I've alighted upon an example of an organism that uses sex as a biological weapon to eliminate food competitors, that provides a prime example of this. Hesperocimex cochimiensis and Hesperocimex sonorensis are two species of Hemipteran bugs, that compete for a food source - they're blood feeding parasites of owls in their natural habitat. It's been found that if a male H. cochimiensis inseminates a female H. sonorensis, the result is that the H. sonorensis female dies from a massive immune reaction to the H. cochimiensis sperm. Just to add to the fun inolved, like numerous other Cimicid bugs, these species aso indulge in hypodermic insemination, which adds its own spice to the proceedings.


There may be some reproductive barriers to closely related species being able to produce offspring. But we can use genome transplants in such cases.

Another fun example from the world of invertebrate zoology, is provided by Skipper butterflies (Family Hesperiidae). Members of the Genus Erynnis have been documented for some time as possessing asymmetric genitalia, making them stand out from the majority of other Lepidoptera, in which the genitalia are bilaterally symmetric. However, two American species in the Genus, Erynnis funeralis and Erynnis propertius, have secondarily re-acquired symmetry in their genitalia, which means they're now mechanically incompatible for hybridisation with other members of the Genus in their locality. I really love the way biology repeatedly pisses all over creationist pretensions ... :D


As I said, just because some beetles are too small to mate with larger beetles, doesn't mean that they are not descended from a common beetle type or kind.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#152  Postby Wortfish » Sep 24, 2018 3:20 pm

theropod wrote:Extant birds do not use their femur in the same way that nonavian dinosaus did. If the chicken video were of a chicken skeleton, and a side by side gate with the T. rex skeleton were shown, the difference would be obvious. The T. rex femur could be seen to swing across a far wider arc than the femur in any extant bird. While the chicken and tyrannosaur both employ their feet in similar manners there is a subtle difference here as well. Chickens have a descended and expressed hallux (rear facing digit) which bears weight, whereas tyrannosaurs rarely left traces where this digit is seen because it is greatly reduced. This means the tyrannosaur could not easily tilt back on its feet without balance issues. Think of T. rex as being shark-like, and moving forward most of the time.

RS


Do you think the T-Rex was covered in feathers?
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#153  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 24, 2018 3:32 pm

Wortfish wrote:[
Do you think the T-Rex was covered in feathers?


Here, you are doing a crude simulation of a Gish Gallop, limited only by the meagre talents you bring to the exercise. Perhaps you can give your account of what you think the presence of feathers has to do with the way a flightless animal walks around on the ground.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29578
Age: 23
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#154  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 24, 2018 4:07 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

Citation for this?


"Macroevolution is speciation": http://www.cnah.org/khs/khs_pubs/KHSN_119.pdf


Obscure source (and one that took three minutes to load on a broadband connection that normally handles such matters in 5 seconds), but for once, not the usual duplicitous creationist output. Makes a pleasant change.

But of course, those of us who paid attention in class, understand that any evolutionary process generates biodiversity, regardless of whether or not it results in a speciation event. Because at bottom, biodiversity is simply genetic diversity within biosphere populations.

Moving on ...

Wortfish wrote:
Do tell us all why that definition is "shallow and cautious". Preferably with reference to some actual biology to support this assertion.


I mean that such a definition in no way implies universal common descent. It just means that a group or population can become reproductively isolated.


Wrong. It does imply universal common descent, courtesy of the fact that current populations inherited their genetic constitution from relevant ancestors. You do know what the word "inherit" means, don't you?

Wortfish wrote:
Quite simply, the higher taxonomic divisions, are divisions humans formulated for their cataloguing convenience, and at bottom, nothing more. Though I'm familiar with the manner in which not only creationists, but other religious fundamentalists, have a habit of treating words in a book as somehow magically dictating to reality how it behaves, regardless of whether or not reality pisses itself laughing at such hubris.


The only taxonomic division that is properly defined is the species. All others are arbitrary.


Oh wait, this is exactly what I was telling you in the above post. You want a cookie for working this out?

Wortfish wrote:
Do they? Should I care about this? Or should I, more properly, be suspicious of their trying to force-fit biological data into a doctrinal framework, for the purpose of propping up pre-scientific mythology?


Of course. Because if a pari from every species around today was on board the Ark, it would have sunk! Not so with the kinds.


Once again, point me to a definition of "kinds" that doesn't involve the comedy of the absurd.

Wortfish wrote:
Er, do come back when creationists have something other than a morass of comedy fabrications, with respect to the matter of defining "kind" ... which none of them have been able to do.


Do you deny that there exists man-kind?


:picard:

This is a colloquial term. F for effort.

Wortfish wrote:
Care to rework that last sentence into something resembling conventionally parseable English? Of course, if you're trying to assert here, that being able to produce offspring, sterile or not, is a diagnostic criterion for "kind", then you have a problem, because there are documented instances of closely related species that will not produce offspring of any sort if you hybridise them. Indeed, I've alighted upon an example of an organism that uses sex as a biological weapon to eliminate food competitors, that provides a prime example of this. Hesperocimex cochimiensis and Hesperocimex sonorensis are two species of Hemipteran bugs, that compete for a food source - they're blood feeding parasites of owls in their natural habitat. It's been found that if a male H. cochimiensis inseminates a female H. sonorensis, the result is that the H. sonorensis female dies from a massive immune reaction to the H. cochimiensis sperm. Just to add to the fun inolved, like numerous other Cimicid bugs, these species aso indulge in hypodermic insemination, which adds its own spice to the proceedings.


There may be some reproductive barriers to closely related species being able to produce offspring. But we can use genome transplants in such cases.


Except that oops, this is currently a laboratory technique deployed by humans, not something that occurs in the biosphere. As for horizontal gene transfer, this is mostly restricted to bacteria and archaea. It's not documented as occurring between multicellular eukaryotes as far as I'm aware.

So basically you're appealing to magic again here?

Wortfish wrote:
Another fun example from the world of invertebrate zoology, is provided by Skipper butterflies (Family Hesperiidae). Members of the Genus Erynnis have been documented for some time as possessing asymmetric genitalia, making them stand out from the majority of other Lepidoptera, in which the genitalia are bilaterally symmetric. However, two American species in the Genus, Erynnis funeralis and Erynnis propertius, have secondarily re-acquired symmetry in their genitalia, which means they're now mechanically incompatible for hybridisation with other members of the Genus in their locality. I really love the way biology repeatedly pisses all over creationist pretensions ... :D


As I said, just because some beetles are too small to mate with larger beetles, doesn't mean that they are not descended from a common beetle type or kind.


I don't recall molecular phylogeny saying anything different. Except of course that molecular phylogeny doesn't introduce an arbitrary limit upon common ancestry. So do please tell us all once and for all, how this arbitrary limit is drawn, and for what biologically sound reasons, as opposed to blindly asserting that such a limit exists, in a desperate attempt to prop up mythology written by people who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#155  Postby Rumraket » Sep 24, 2018 9:59 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Do tell us all why that definition is "shallow and cautious". Preferably with reference to some actual biology to support this assertion.
I mean that such a definition in no way implies universal common descent.

Who the hell says that the term "macrovolution" implies universal common descent?

Universal common descent is just called that, universal common descent. While the case for universal common descent of course rests on the reality of (and evidence for) macroevolutionary change at least in part. But it is odd to somehow claim there's something wrong the definition of macroevolution because you seemingly expect it to imply that all species are related through a common genealogical relationship.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#156  Postby theropod » Sep 24, 2018 10:01 pm

Wortfish wrote:
theropod wrote:Extant birds do not use their femur in the same way that nonavian dinosaus did. If the chicken video were of a chicken skeleton, and a side by side gate with the T. rex skeleton were shown, the difference would be obvious. The T. rex femur could be seen to swing across a far wider arc than the femur in any extant bird. While the chicken and tyrannosaur both employ their feet in similar manners there is a subtle difference here as well. Chickens have a descended and expressed hallux (rear facing digit) which bears weight, whereas tyrannosaurs rarely left traces where this digit is seen because it is greatly reduced. This means the tyrannosaur could not easily tilt back on its feet without balance issues. Think of T. rex as being shark-like, and moving forward most of the time.

RS


Do you think the T-Rex was covered in feathers?


What I think and $5 will get you a cuppa. What matters is what evidence exists. Since so many basal dinosaurs have been found with associated feathers, or quill scarring from where feathers were anchored, it becomes quite possible to infer all dinosaurs retained some form of feather. Ornithischians, as well as Theropods, have now been recovered which reveal the preservation of feathers. The environment in which feathers are preserved is critical for such evidence to survive across such deep time. In a Laggerstatton setting requires a lake deep enough, and stable enough, to create an anoxic at, or near, the sedimentary layer. The subject specimens must arrive at this layer largely intact, and remain undisturbed until lithification.

In some settings, like the ocean fronting Hell Creek, which was a lowland forest with slow meandering streams, which changed course with each new tropical storm. Such a setting, which is where we find specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex, is not conducive to feather preservation. I suspect T. rex did have feathers in some form, as did all dinosaurs. Even such armored critters as Ankylosaurs could have had feathers. Think guard hairs used as touch sensors. Having a suit of armor would isolate an Ankylosaur without some means by which to detect immovable objects, and a few well placed quills and they could be nimble in thick cover.

All this, and so much more, can be researched using Google Scholar. Don’t ask me these questions. Ask what the evidence shows. Ask using one of the greatest educational tools ever created, and is at your fingertips. Ask what we have discovered, and how we have done so, and then you can ask questions of the right kind. My opinion, as is yours, or anyones, is worthless in comparison to hard empirical evidence.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#157  Postby Rumraket » Sep 24, 2018 10:05 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Wrong. It does imply universal common descent, courtesy of the fact that current populations inherited their genetic constitution from relevant ancestors.

No c'mon. The fact that macroevolution is a fact, as in we know that speciation happens and that species can radically change morphology and biochemistry through evolutionary change on geological time-spans, does not itself imply that all species currently known must share a common genealogical realationship.

There is evidence that they do, but the mere definition of the term macroevolution isn't evidence for anything. Macroevolution could be true, while universal common descent could be false. There could concievably have been multiple independent origins of life, and different parts of extant biodiversity could in such a scenario trace their ancestry to independent origins. We could at least in principle have two parallel trees of life, or even more.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#158  Postby Wortfish » Sep 25, 2018 2:16 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Obscure source (and one that took three minutes to load on a broadband connection that normally handles such matters in 5 seconds), but for once, not the usual duplicitous creationist output. Makes a pleasant change.But of course, those of us who paid attention in class, understand that any evolutionary process generates biodiversity, regardless of whether or not it results in a speciation event. Because at bottom, biodiversity is simply genetic diversity within biosphere populations.


Selection is actually the reduction of diversity. It has to be, since to "select" means to choose one over another.
Natural selection sculpts genetic information to limit diversity: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/nat ... -diversity

Natural selection could limit a species' ability to adapt to future environmental change by removing linked variations that, despite having no immediate beneficial impact on the species, could become relevant to its survival and capacity to cope with its environment in the future.


I also found this very handy definition of macroevolution: https://quizlet.com/218260827/chapter-8 ... ash-cards/

Microevolution refers to the changes in the gene pool of a population over generations. Macroevolution refers to speciation, the formation of an entirely new species. Microevolution happens on a small scale within a single population while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.


But if that is what macroevolution entails, then virtually all creationists accept macroevolution!

Wrong. It does imply universal common descent, courtesy of the fact that current populations inherited their genetic constitution from relevant ancestors. You do know what the word "inherit" means, don't you?


Just because some species share a common ancestor, doesn't mean all species share the same common ancestor(s). You're forcing a conclusion when one does not necessarily exist.

Oh wait, this is exactly what I was telling you in the above post. You want a cookie for working this out?


Well, yes. But that is why disputing the term "kind" is spurious when essentially all taxonomic divisions above that of a species lack a proper and precise definition. This is a problem facing both the creationist and evolutionist alike.

Once again, point me to a definition of "kinds" that doesn't involve the comedy of the absurd.


At least for sexually reproducing animals:

"A Group of organisms that uniquely share a common ancestor through which they posssess specific synapomorphies. Members of the same kind can normally reproduce with each other even if the offspring is sterile due to chromosomal variations. Physical differences may also inhibit successful reproduction."

It is worth noting that some humans may not be able to reproduce with each other due to genetic abnormalities such as dwarfism. But this does not mean they are of a different kind, let alone a different species.

This is a colloquial term. F for effort.


The taxonomic division, genus, is Latin for "kind".

Except that oops, this is currently a laboratory technique deployed by humans, not something that occurs in the biosphere. As for horizontal gene transfer, this is mostly restricted to bacteria and archaea. It's not documented as occurring between multicellular eukaryotes as far as I'm aware. So basically you're appealing to magic again here?


The point is that genome transplants are a way of getting an organism to use the DNA of another organisms when the physical apparatus of reproduction prevents successful copulation. IVF treatment allows couples to reproduce where normally they would not be able to do so. Genome transplants have been successfully done between the goldfish and red carp.

I don't recall molecular phylogeny saying anything different. Except of course that molecular phylogeny doesn't introduce an arbitrary limit upon common ancestry. So do please tell us all once and for all, how this arbitrary limit is drawn, and for what biologically sound reasons, as opposed to blindly asserting that such a limit exists, in a desperate attempt to prop up mythology written by people who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.


There are natural limits to biological change, and human experiences with selective breeding have exposed them. These do not mean that universal common ancestry is not possible, but that some factor other than the selection of random variation is needed to bring about major changes, such as metazoan phyla in the Cambrian.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#159  Postby Wortfish » Sep 25, 2018 2:19 am

Rumraket wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Wrong. It does imply universal common descent, courtesy of the fact that current populations inherited their genetic constitution from relevant ancestors.

No c'mon. The fact that macroevolution is a fact, as in we know that speciation happens and that species can radically change morphology and biochemistry through evolutionary change on geological time-spans, does not itself imply that all species currently known must share a common genealogical realationship.

There is evidence that they do, but the mere definition of the term macroevolution isn't evidence for anything. Macroevolution could be true, while universal common descent could be false. There could concievably have been multiple independent origins of life, and different parts of extant biodiversity could in such a scenario trace their ancestry to independent origins. We could at least in principle have two parallel trees of life, or even more.


In other words, life could be polyphyletyic rather than monophyletic.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#160  Postby Macdoc » Sep 25, 2018 2:43 am

Go chase evidence ....we'll wait.. :popcorn:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17316
Age: 74
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest