Lack of transitional fossils: another evolutionary dilemma?

[bob b]

And once again, Bob declines to look at the evidence and instead hides behind quotations. Nice.

Since people like you would not believe anything I say, I am forced to quote from the experts in the field, who are still evolutionists.

For example, Gould simply hypothesized that the missing transitions were due to small populations evolving so quickly that no record was preserved.

In other words the evidence for his theory is the lack of transitional forms.

 

[bob b]

"The Cambrian explosion remains a puzzle, however, which has been only fitfully illuminated by the discovery of the enigmatic soft- bodied Ediacaran fauna, which had a worldwide distribution between 580 and 560 million years ago. ... The puzzle is why the Cambrian explosion took place when it did. Two kinds of answer are possible. One is that, before complex multicellular organisms could evolve, some crucial invention or inventions in cell physiology or gene regulation had to be made: once made, there was rapid radiation into an ecologically empty world. The apparently monophyletic origin of the Metazoa, deduced from molecular data, is consistent with this view." (Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors [Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest, "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.203).

 

[Andre1983]

Since people like you would not believe anything I say, I am forced to quote from the experts in the field, who are still evolutionists.

For example, Gould simply hypothesized that the missing transitions were due to small populations evolving so quickly that no record was preserved.

In other words the evidence for his theory is the lack of transitional forms.

Without them having evidence -- it's naught but appeal to authority...

 

[The Barbarian]

And I note that bob is still not confident enough of his edited quotes, to actually test the assertion.

C'mon bob. Give us five examples of two major groups said to be related, and I'll see if I can find you some transitionals.

What could be worse than people seeing that you're hiding from the evidence?

 

[bob b]

"In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115).

 

[Andre1983]

Way to cherrypick random quotes!

From 1949... An impressive attack against modern science!

Now...

Have you got any clue as to how most fossils are found?
Please tell me -- I know, but I want to see if you do...
When you do -- you will also realize that the gaps are a logical consequence of the answer to "how most fossils are found".

 

[mighty_duck]

""From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107)."

Might as well just post a link to the quote mining site, instead of spamming this message board with all of its contents.

 

[Skeptic]

I challenge you to present historical evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity was ever referred to as a hypothesis, ditto evolution - hell, I don't know of a single documented case where something that has later been referred to as a Theory started out being referred to as a Hypothesis.

Einstein's theory of relativity was consistent with the known experimental evidence of the day. If relativity had had no experimental support at the time, then it would have been more accurate to call it a "hypothesis."

=============
"Einstein's original theory, formulated in 1905 and known as the special theory of relativity, was limited to frames of reference moving at constant velocity relative to each other. In 1915, he generalized his hypothesis to formulate the general theory of relativity that applied to systems that accelerate with reference to each other. This extension showed gravitation to be a consequence of the geometry of space-time, and predicted the bending of light in its passage close to a massive body like a star, an effect first observed in 1919. General relativity, although less firmly established than the special theory, has deep significance for an understanding of the structure of the universe and its evolution."
-- source


"It is clear from our previous considerations that the (special) theory of relativity has grown out of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields it has not appreciably altered the predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws, and—what is incomparably more important—it has considerably reduced the number of independent hypotheses forming the basis of theory."
-- Albert Einstein (source)

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.”
-- Albert Einstein

“Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting points and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up.”
-- Albert Einstein

"On the other hand, it must be conceded that a theory has an important advantage if its basic concepts and fundamental hypotheses are "close to experience," and greater confidence in such a theory is certainly justified. There is less danger of going completely astray, particularly since it takes so much less time and effort to disprove such theories by experience. Yet more and more, as the depth of our knowledge increases, we must give up this advantage in our quest for logical simplicity and uniformity in the foundations of physical theory. It has to be admitted that general relativity has gone further than previous physical theories in relinquishing "closeness to experience" of fundamental concepts in order to attain logical simplicity. This holds already for the theory of gravitation, and it is even more true of the new generalization, which is an attempt to comprise the properties of the total field. In the generalized theory the procedure of deriving from the premises of the theory conclusions that can be confronted with empirical data is so difficult that so far no such result has been obtained. In favor of this theory are, at this point, its logical simplicity and its "rigidity." Rigidity means here that the theory is either true or false, but not modifiable.

... The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. Yet we have achieved something if we have succeeded in formulating a meaningful and precise question. Affirmation or refutation will not be easy, in spite of an abundance of known empirical facts. The derivation, from the equations, of conclusions which can be confronted with experience will require painstaking efforts and probably new mathematical methods.
-- Albert Einstein (source)

"I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusionis false. The hundredth time I am right."
-- Albert Einstein

"No amount of experimentation can prove me right, one experiment can prove me wrong."
-- Albert Einstein

“It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer.”
-- Albert Einstein

“We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”
-- Albert Einstein

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-- Albert Einstein ... (in jest, no doubt)

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
-- Albert Einstein

=============

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.”
-- Charles Darwin

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently, bob has waved the white flag on transitionals, spooked by the challenge to present any major groups lacking them.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Apparently, bob has waved the white flag on transitionals, spooked by the challenge to present any major groups lacking them.

No, although Bob is overwhelmed by the amount of evidence that has been presented for transitional fossils [which is apparent by his refusal to directly address any one piece of evidence {note: he only speaks in broad generalizations and cites decades old quotations}], he has not conceded this discussion. Instead, he will most likely start a few more threads "refuting" TOE within the next few days, take a brief hiatus, and return with the same tired arguments. Why do I think this will be the case? Because he has done so ever since I joined TOL!

It's kind of sad how Bob has become a joke.

Why don't you go and preach the word of God, or something? Help some deaf kids. Work with the homeless. If you spent all the time you waste preaching to the choir at TOL helping others; you could be like Mother Theresa. Or Ghandi. Or maybe even GeneCosta.

 

[Mr Jack]

Thanks to Skeptic and The Barbarian. I was wrong. Sorry.

 

[Mr Jack]

Since people like you would not believe anything I say, I am forced to quote from the experts in the field, who are still evolutionists.

Yes, in general I assume anything you say is wrong, and any quotes you dig up are selectively mined. That's why we're asking you for evidence. Evidence we can go and look at. That's why we like science, we're not required to listen simply to the words of "authorities" or "experts" - we can go and look at the evidence.

 

[bob b]

Apparently, bob has waved the white flag on transitionals, spooked by the challenge to present any major groups lacking them.

I'm not an expert on transitionals, but the people quoted are.

Apparently some people here think they are more expert than the experts.

Does anyone here have any evidence that the situation with regard to the lack of transitions between major groups is no longer true?

If not then I guess it is logical to go with what the experts said in the past about this.

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

 

[Mr Jack]

What are "major groups", bob? Why don't you answer the barbarians challenge if you're so sure he won't be able to live up to it?

 

[bob b]

What are "major groups", bob? Why don't you answer the barbarians challenge if you're so sure he won't be able to live up to it?

The term "major groups" is used by the experts. I suggest you ask them to define it.

The reason Barb wants to talk about specific cases is because there are a number of cases in which a certain species has been proposed as a transition between major groups. Some researchers say that it is, others disagree. In other words it is not that clear (we have only fossils), especially given the definition of a transitional. I have no desire to enter into a long, drawn out discussion of a particular hypothetical transition. It is obvious that evolutionists need such transitions for their theory to be true.

On the other hand, the concept of "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the beginning" does not need to hypothesize transitions between major groups, because this never occured. Thus the lack of transitions between major groups is a point in its favor.

 

[Mr Jack]

Wow.

Bob, in your last two posts you've stated not only that you don't understand the science but now that you don't even understand the quotes you've posted!

 

[bob b]

Wow.

Bob, in your last two posts you've stated not only that you don't understand the science but now that you don't even understand the quotes you've posted!

What part of "the lack of transitionals between major groups" do you not understand?

 

[Mr Jack]

What part of "the lack of transitionals between major groups" do you not understand?

I don't know what Major Groups means in this context. And, as you've already admitted, neither do you. The difference is that I didn't bring it into the conversation.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not an expert on transitionals, but the people quoted are.

Apparently some people here think they are more expert than the experts.

Actually, your doctored quotes aren't what the experts actually say. It appears that you know enough about it to know that there are many transitionals between major groups, however, since you are extremely reluctant to defend your assertion with evidence.

Does anyone here have any evidence that the situation with regard to the lack of transitions between major groups is no longer true?

Yep. And it's been that way since the 1800s. Pick a major group, or several, and I'll show you.

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

So let's see what Gould really says...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.

Exactly the opposite of what your edited quote would lead one to believe, bob. This is the real reason you won't defend your assertion.

Shame on you.

 

[bob b]

Actually, your doctored quotes aren't what the experts actually say. It appears that you know enough about it to know that there are many transitionals between major groups, however, since you are extremely reluctant to defend your assertion with evidence.



Yep. And it's been that way since the 1800s. Pick a major group, or several, and I'll show you.

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

So let's see what Gould really says...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.

Exactly the opposite of what your edited quote would lead one to believe, bob. This is the real reason you won't defend your assertion.

Shame on you.

Shame on you.

Yes, they are abundant above the species level, but not at the level of major groups.

The quotes have not been "doctored".