Theory of Evolution

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Regardless of how you choose to interpret it, the article rebuts the statement that there has been no new information to contribute to the theory of evolution over the last 160 years. There has been mountains. The picture is decidedly not the same as it was in Darwin's time. We have exponentially more fossils, and entirely new fields of study, like DNA. The picture is simply not the same now as it was then, to say the picture is unchanged is the opposite of the truth.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:24 pm Regardless of how you choose to interpret it, the article rebuts the statement that there has been no new information to contribute to the theory of evolution over the last 160 years. There has been mountains. The picture is decidedly not the same as it was in Darwin's time. We have exponentially more fossils, and entirely new fields of study, like DNA. The picture is simply not the same now as it was then, to say the picture is unchanged is the opposite of the truth.
You have now not used the term "evidence" or expressions like "give more credence to" or "justify a higher degree of certainty" of evolution as you did before. You just said "contribute to the theory of evolution". And to the latter no one has objected! It is as Dr Denton said, evolutionary thoughts and concepts have changed, but thoughts and concepts are mental constructs and not empiral evidence of evolution. The fundamental discontinuity in the fossil record is an important hurdle recognized by Darwin in his time and still relevant 160 years later, ie today. And your article clearly and unambiguously reiterated that.

Your article clearly and unambiguously confirms Dr Denton's statements which was as follows.

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.
And your articles says:
  • Darwin’s observations about bias and completeness would today mostly fall under the heading of taphonomy, which is the study of the processes of preservation and their effects on the information present in the paleonto- logical record (Behrensmeyer et al. 2000). In many re- spects, Darwin’s views on the shortcomings of the fossil record are still credible today, and some of his concerns about preservation bias and geological incompleteness merit extensive treatment in modern overviews (Kidwell and Flessa 1996; Martin 1999; Behrensmeyer et al. 2000; Holland 2000; Kidwell and Holland 2002). There are in- deed usually large temporal gaps separating preserved geological units (Peters 2006) and between individual beds within units (Kowalewski and Bambach 2003); in terms of strict temporal completeness, the fossil record is very often more gap than record.
Are you going to dispute your own references now?? If so then that's an internal affair between you and your resources. I can't get involved.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I'm disputing your abuse of his intellectual rigor.

"In many re- spects, Darwin’s views on the shortcomings of the fossil record are still credible today." That doesn't mean there's no new evidence, that means the same category of shortcoming exists - it exists in a lesser form, because there's more evidence, so the shortcoming is smaller now than it was then.

"There are in- deed usually large temporal gaps separating preserved geological units (Peters 2006) and between individual beds within units (Kowalewski and Bambach 2003); in terms of strict temporal completeness, the fossil record is very often more gap than record."

This again isn't him saying "there hasn't been any new evidence". This is him admitting a reality: not every creature that dies becomes fossilized.

You're latching onto the statements he makes and interpreting much larger statements in there than what he's actually saying.

So, while none of the quotes you gave explicitly say there's no new evidence, here's an explicit quote I can find:
Darwin concluded that whereas the broad outline of the
fossil history of life was consistent with descent with modification and natural selection, the geological record was
too incomplete and too poorly known to document in
detail the transformation of species.
One hundred and fifty years later, we are in a different
position.
Which happens to be exactly my point since page 1 of this conversation: the science of evolution is indeed in a much different position.

And this is still only about fossils, again not even touching on DNA evidence. DNA hadn't even been dreamed of yet when Darwin was around.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:53 pm That doesn't mean there's no new evidence,
Evidence of what?
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Agent Smith »

"What the hell are all these bloody buttons for?"

"I agree, there's really no need for so many buttons. In fact it's possible to have only one button!"

"Really?! Where can I get one!?"

"You can get one in the floating city!"

"NS?"

"Yep, NS!"

"Muchas gracias senor!"

"De nada!"
Post Reply