jp3089 Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 You're right, that's because the relevant hypothesis would be: "Everyone throws out their computers and they disintegrate when thrown in the landfill." A hypothesis which in this case unfortunately isn't true, but its the parallel of the "hard to become a fossil" hypothesis. Cheers,Buffy That doesn't make sense because that hypothesis doesn't explain why the Commodore 64 and the Dell were saved to be viewed. According to that hypothesis, all the computers are gone. Sorry, I don't think it stands up to logic when examined closely. My example of why the "fossils are hard to make" hypothesis is bad still stands. I'm looking for actual hypotheses, not just explanations of how fossils are made. The point that fossils are hard to make has nothing to do with why there would be millions of year gaps in the records. I'm sure there are better hypotheses out there. -jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... Thanks Buffy and many others for your posts. :( Statistically speaking, when you have large sampling rates, absence of evidence can serve as evidence of absence. :( Darwin expected many transitional fossils. Also, transitional fossils leading to modern humans shouldn't be hard to fossilize. They aren't 100% soft tissue so they should "fossil" with the best of them!. thank you all for you many posts, you are definitely exceeding my ability to read them all and keep up. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 That doesn't make sense because that hypothesis doesn't explain why the Commodore 64 and the Dell were saved to be viewed. According to that hypothesis, all the computers are gone. Sorry, I don't think it stands up to logic when examined closely.Both the excerpt above and the computer analogy are leaving out some details, mainly because I and many others assume they're obvious, which they're not. In the computer analogy, the full hypothesis is that the Commodore and the Dell were dumped at the edge of the landfill, so they did not degrade, and the edge of the landfill is the only part that's easily accessible to the person who found them. There may be Apple II's hiding in the depths of the landfill that survived because they were in the trunk of a Chevy which hasn't been found yet. The point is that a variety of circumstances have to occur for a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old to survive. Those circumstances are rare, but they do occur, and thus we have few fossils lying around among all those animals that died. If there are specific aspects to this basic hypothesis that you find inadequate, please specify them and I and others will be happy to fill in the details. The basic hypothesis here is generally accepted, and while there are other hypotheses ("there was a great flood 4,782 years ago"), they're generally not of the scientific variety. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 The point that fossils are hard to make has nothing to do with why there would be millions of year gaps in the records. Maybe there's not millions of years gaps. I think it's reasonable to assume, based on the record of fossils that have been found, that there are many yet to be found. New fossils are found all the time. How many will be found over the next 10, 100, 1000 and more years? When assembling a jigsaw puzzle you don't really begin to see the big picture with the first piece but, the big picture does begin to take shape long before the last piece is placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Statistically speaking, when you have large sampling rates, absence of evidence can serve as evidence of absence.True! I invoke Marnie's Rule of Discourse: "Crass generalizations may be justified by admitting at least ten exceptions." At any rate, if there are NO datapoints, you can certainly say that the hypothesis is "not shown by any data" while if there *are* datapoints, finding few of them only begs the question of why there are not more, not that "since there are few we can ignore them." Darwin expected many transitional fossils.Darwin didn't do much digging, either. He had no datapoints to base that one on. He'd probably be the first to admit his guess on this point could be wrong.... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp3089 Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Both the excerpt above and the computer analogy are leaving out some details, mainly because I and many others assume they're obvious, which they're not. In the computer analogy, the full hypothesis is that the Commodore and the Dell were dumped at the edge of the landfill, so they did not degrade, and the edge of the landfill is the only part that's easily accessible to the person who found them. There may be Apple II's hiding in the depths of the landfill that survived because they were in the trunk of a Chevy. The point is that a variety of circumstances have to occur for a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old to survive. Those circumstances are rare, but the do occur, and thus we have a few fossils lying around. If there are specific aspects to this basic hypothesis that you find inadequate, please specify them and I and others will be happy to fill in the details. The basic hypothesis here is generally accepted, and while there are other hypotheses ("there was a great flood 4,782 years ago"), they're generally not of the scientific variety. Cheers,Buffy Fair enough. I still don't think it's a good hypothesis... I'm not seeing how it explains major gaps in the fossil record (especially when the record should show divergence of some sorts). But if its generally accepted, then we can let this part of the discussion end. Thanks for your patience. -jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 He had no datapoints to base that one on. He'd probably be the first to admit his guess on this point could be wrong.... Hummm, I wonder how applicable this quote is to his life? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 I still don't think it's a good hypothesis... I'm not seeing how it explains major gaps in the fossil record (especially when the record should show divergence of some sorts).If its hard to become a fossil, on the order of one creature out of millions ends up as a fossil, and that of all the fossils, few have made it into a paleontolgists trowel, then its not only probable but almost certain that that whole series of species in the lineage of animal families have left no fossil remnants for us to find. That's why there are gaps in the record that we have to date. Personally I look at what paleontologists make and its a wonder to me that *any* have been found. Not many people looking! As to divergence, there's lots of evidence of divergence of within evolutionary development of species, with very clear branches, some of which die out. In the case of Neandertals for example we have not ony morphological analysis but some initial DNA comparisons that show that modern humans do not share the same DNA as Neandertals. Are you refering to something else? Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Hummm, I wonder how applicable this quote is to his life? :(Well, he had lots of datapoints to go on for Evolution, but Chuck was a pretty modest guy, unlike the people who attacked him and his defenders so unmercifully. Lucky he wasn't a contemporary of Galileo or he could have been put in an iron maiden and then be burned at the stake! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Buffy,I'm sympathetic to Darwin, the simple cell truly appeard simple back then. Today we know better.then a person could throw dead fish in the trash and see "life" in a few days. Today, hopefully we don't view it in quite the same way. I don't fault him forthe times he lived in. I also don't doubt micro, it's macro I see a problem with, but I'm still writing up my questions. someone asked for people i could name that were affected by the teachngs of Evolution in school. Off hand I can think of Lee Strobel and Tom Hanks (and friends whom you wouldn't know). I've also talked this over with seminar speakers who have told me it has indeed affected high school and college students. Sorry I don't have a paper to site, this has been more though personal conversations and that nature. I realize this type of squishy data is not well received here and will try to use more objective data in the future. thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 someone asked for people i could name that were affected by the teachngs of Evolution in school. Off hand I can think of Lee Strobel and Tom Hanks (and friends whom you wouldn't know). I've also talked this over with seminar speakers who have told me it has indeed affected high school and college students.I do have friends who belong to a variety of conservative religious groups who agree Evolution is indeed what got the universe to where we are today, and the vast majority of people I have met who support Evolution are religious. There is conflict between science and religion only where people wish to find conflict. It is dogmatic and cruel to tell people that their personal choice in religious belief is wrong because it is influenced by whatever they've learned anywhere, in school, from parents, in personal life experiences. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 I wonder - have you ever thought about how any human beings will be fossilizes and eventually be found in someone's fossil record? Considering we are a very young species (compared to the millions of years of the dinosaurs), and that most of our bodies consist of soft tissue and brittle bones, we might actually end up with almost no hint that we existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 I do have friends who belong to a variety of conservative religious groups who agree Evolution is indeed what got the universe to where we are today, and the vast majority of people I have met who support Evolution are religious. There is conflict between science and religion only where people wish to find conflict. It is dogmatic and cruel to tell people that their personal choice in religious belief is wrong because it is influenced by whatever they've learned anywhere, in school, from parents, in personal life experiences. Cheers,Buffy So how would you go about discouraging people from believing the dogmatic and cruel teachings they are subjected to? Religion does not promote scientific study, regardless of what the Pope says.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 I wonder - have you ever thought about how any human beings will be fossilizes and eventually be found in someone's fossil record? Considering we are a very young species (compared to the millions of years of the dinosaurs), and that most of our bodies consist of soft tissue and brittle bones, we might actually end up with almost no hint that we existed.What about all those plastic and carved statues and digital images? I think we are preserved in many ways for as long as the planet survives. Or, we could start sending corpses for burial on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Well, he had lots of datapoints to go on for Evolution, but Chuck was a pretty modest guy, unlike the people who attacked him and his defenders so unmercifully. Is there an implication here that the father of evolution, an evolved being, had feelings?While I'm not sure we have actual laboratory facts to prove this I suppose it could be deduced by considering that most, if not all, people we know have feelings, Charles was a "people", therefore Charles had feelings. If we accept this for purposes of discussion, what might the biological evolutionary processes be that develops "feelings" ? (I'm not talking "fight or flight", but feelings like love, :( ridicule, :( embarrassment, :xx: and the like.) If there is a evolutionary mechanism for their development, what is the functional value of selecting them for future generations? Thank you for your thoughts, :cup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolic Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 (8) The Pax-6 gene, the two intermediate-level genes, and the lower-level genes are not the only genetic entities conserved across different phyla. In addition, splice sites have been conserved in Pax-6 and its homologues in mice, humans, squid, ascidians, nematodes, etc. (9) Also conserved among vertebrates and fruit flies in relation to eye development are the two genes Rx and Tbx5. (10) All photoreceptors use the seven-transmembrane proteins known as opsins – and they all contain a vitamin A-derived chromophore that absorbs light – and they all use G protein-mediated signal transduction. (11) All photoreceptors either have cilia throughout their “lives”, or possess them transiently during development, thus providing a very plausible commonality between the two apparently distinct types of photoreceptors (ciliated or rhabdomeric). Thank you for your post and this information! The design of the eye is quite amazing.I know that design drawings for simpler man made items like electrical and plumbing can be difficult to keep control of after years and years of use and numerous changes, even with the best human methods. DNA is a pretty amazing peice of work and rivals anything I've ever seen even the most intelligent humans produce. If microsoft made DNA, I would probably be crashing 3 times a day...not that a nap is a bad thing! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 So how would you go about discouraging people from believing the dogmatic and cruel teachings they are subjected to? Religion does not promote scientific study, regardless of what the Pope says..Tee hee! The economist in me insists on winning them over in the marketplace of ideas! We got one here! Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts