Oldest vertebrate fossil found in Australia, scientists say

They are not restarts. Evolution didn't go back to step one at each mass extinction: the groups that survived (according to the punctuated equilibrium model, which may be somewhat suspect in its broad applications -- whatever) moved into niches vacated by extinct groups or created by whatever it was that caused the mass die-off. I don't even see where your own links refute this. That's not starting over, that's moving on. Hopefully, when you're house burns down you don't feel that you have to start a new family, as well. From our vantage point, it may look like everything's getting smarter, but that's only because it's working for us: intelligence and warm-bloodedness are great tools, especially in a variable climate, because it is easier to withstand cold (as long as food is available) and a smart critter is going to be able to find food in a changing environment than an otherwise identical dumb critter. Why this mechanism is less able to account for our evolution (in the broadest terms) than the interference of some otherworldy, unobserved force I'm not sure. Occam's razor seems to point toward the mechanism as is.

And as to probabilities -- we can't even adequately compute these factors. Many of the sciences that are giving us our greatest clues into phylogeny and evolution are still nascent. The human genome is still in the "final" stages of being mapped, and we don't even know what most of it does. We don't even know what most of E. coli's genome does. It's going to be a long, long time before the tools progress far enough in molecular and developmental biology to know exactly how a genome is expressed, both morphologically and proteomically. Probably neither of us will be alive to see that kind of understanding. So to try to wrap the thing up in a tidy little package and give it some ultimate causation -- if that's what you're trying to do; I'm still not entirely clear on what you mean by targeted -- is to jump the gun. Will the current evolutionary model(s) be changed? Of course. That's how science works. But the working model is designed to account for what we have observed.

As for targeted: with the appearance of the first agnathian -- not that anything ever appears as the "first" anything, the general morphology of everything with a notochord was largely determined already, just as something before became cephalized -- that is, chemotactic cells and the ganglia that go with them were localized within an animal body -- the only ways to progress further were to become more or less morphologically polarized. More polarized seems to have been very advantageous for a number of animal groups. Some actually went the other direction, though. We know from looking at the development of echinoderm (that is, starfish and their ilk) that they actually evolved from a more motile, more polarized critter: this is part of their life cycle. For whatever reason, though, the were reduced -- became less complex, less polarized, and more sessile -- rather than more motile and more polarized. Sorry if that's repetitive, but I think it's crucial: it's a specific example of an entire group of animals that have utterly failed to evolve toward the human ideal of intelligence, et al. Was the guiding hand just not concerned about complexity and intelligence in this particular interest? If so, if this entity can be involved in some instances and totally absent in others, it's going to be very hard to demonstrate that such an influence is occurring at all. In fact, such a situation sounds remarkably similar to the Old Testament God to me.

Ican's First link
Unless noted otherwise, materials on this website are copyright © Worldwide Church of God . All rights reserved.

Ican's second link
University of California Santa Cruz - Intro Geology
EART10 Geologic Principles
Lecture #7
Geologic Time and the Rock Record

Icans third link
University of Michigan
Global Change 1 Physical Processes
This first semester course deals with issues relating to the physical, chemical and biological cycles contributing to Global Change. Students apply learned knowledge by using systems modeling software to investigate the dynamics of natural systems.

Ican's fourth link
PBS series Evolution
Deep Time

An implication of Einstein's theories of relativity was that light would follow a curved path in the neigborhood of large masses.

So a bunch of scientists blessed by your quoted wisdom, decided they would conduct an observation experiment to determine if Einstein's theories had any validity.

They observed that light from a star whose true position they knew, actually did travel a curved path around the sun.

Based on those results many scientists began to respect Einstein's new theory and start conducting many additional experiments.

They questioned the truth of an implication of Einstein's theory and found that the implication was valid.

Has anyone questioned the validity of the implication of the standard theory of evolution that evolution is not targeted? Have they conducted experiments to test the answer to this question. Some certainly have and found that that implication in the cases tested is not valid. See a previous post that reveals just that (see aquiunk's post -- Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:45 pm Post: 436242 - ).

(1) (Gould) chapter 9, page 757: "Following the lead of his mentor, Carles Lydell, Darwin attributed this striking discord between theoretical expectations and actual observation to the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

(emphasis added)

The most radical quote in that article is this:



And the most remarkable -- and perhaps misleading -- thing about it is the title of the guy's book. Even if true, the implication of this is not that there is some guiding force but that, given the constraints of biological materials, certain traits are likely to evolve convergently. The evolution of flight in birds, mammals, and insects is of course a famous example of that.

Now, if you look at evolution at the genetic rather than the morphological level, there are only certain changes that can take place over a given number of generations. Genes expressing proteins that are no longer necessary -- for instance, for enzymes involved in the ribose-metabolism pathway in the bacteria mentioned in the article -- are under no selective pressure, and so can mutate or even vanish without affecting the evolutionary fitness (the ability to reproduce) of that individual organism. Now, such a significant reduction would take a very long time to play out in a large, slowly reproducing organism such as ourselves, but for a bacterium, every cell division is a new generation, and so evolution can be very fast. In fact, the bacteria which lose the gene gain a slight edge over those that lose it, because DNA replication becomes less energetically expensive.

***

Anyway, I was going to ramble on here, but decided to hit the preview button to see what was up. Given your last response, I'm not sure what to make of your argument. Talk to me as if I was an idiot (which I very likely am, or soon will be, given the rapid deteriorative aging that occurs in my family)... What is it that you are trying to assert? Simply that there is a trend toward self-determination (that is, the ability to react to environmental changes within a generation), or that there is some unseen force guiding such a trend? The former I am willing to seriously entertain, but the latter, to me, is just wishing for an answer to a question we don't even know how to ask yet.

Partiodog wrote:

"In fact, the bacteria which lose the gene gain a slight edge over those that lose it, because DNA replication becomes less energetically expensive".

Ok up to a point but that begs the question; why that gene in all 12 flasks?

My guess would be that,that is the one gene that can be lost without seriously affecting the bacteriums chance of survival. I would want to know what other gene are missing in those flasks and how bacteria missing those genes are doing. Also, ultimate, this observation (the missing gene) calls for some experimentation. Take some bacteria that are not missing the gene, knock out another gene, and see what happens. That has, to my knowledge not been done which would suggest that they are a bit to satisfied with their results.

Well, the popular press has a habit of taking reported scientific discoveries and reporting them as final verdicts. Something tells me these folks aren't sitting back enjoying a cigar right now.

And I don't mean to say that the information isn't at all interesting: it is. And I'd agree with you, in my extremely lay capacity, on why that particular gene might have dropped out. I get the sense, in sitting through my biochem lectures and whatnot, that the general trend in biochemistry/molecular biology is to assume something -- say an enzyme -- has a highly specific function and later find out that other metabolic pathways rely on it.

In fact, metabolically (this is just occurring to me), I'd be very curious to know where that gene's precise function is. If all it does is convert, in a single step, ribose to another product that the cell can metabolize, it makes perfect sense that all the bacteria would lose that gene after 30K generations.

That they are excited about this probably indicates this is not the case, so there may be some other factor at work.

I can tell you one thing, though: these bacteria are evolving to be less, rather then more, complex.

as acquiunk stated , of your links, only 2 are of any use (the first being some Creationist interpretation) The last 2(I dont know why you only post introductory texts), However these last 2 in no way refute anything I said, in fact they substantially reinforce it.
Youre quote from Gould Page 757, is , out of context. Darwin was only a recent convert to Huttons theory (via Lyell) when he boarded the Beagle.Since, Darwin was a student of Jameson who made a career out of trashing Hutton because Jameson was a Wernerian(I think he was one of Werners last students). So Darwin expected this universal gradualistic view of stratigraphy as seemingly (but incorrectly espoused by Hutton)Darwin even expected to use stratigraphy and fossils as sort of a CLOCK, assuming that a gradual slow process of sedimentation occured worldwide . When he didnt see this , or saw the grand scale of tectonics , he abandoned it for awhile because he wasnt really a competent earth scientist. You ican, like the Creationists, take this little side bar and make it sound like a major flaw in the record. When, if you understood that scientists that predated Darwin, were every bit as petty as people today, youd see, it was a misunderstanding of a misinterpretation of really nothing important. Gould never fully develops the important history in his many books. Hes more prone to dig up really lame baseball analogies and classical Greek Mythology along with Wagnerian Opera.


Yes people were able to experiment with some parts of Einstein , and by doing so, did they not continuously reinforce a theory by not disproving some of its foundations. We mess with evolution all trhe time, so what?
Deep sequential stratigraphy with statistical sampling has shown that punctuated equilibrium is maybe problematic.
There are many conversations going on here but Id like to get you back to your post above with all the "I infers" because, as I said , that your data is incorrect . you seem to want to understand but you fail to carry your inquiries to conclusions other than some philosophical extremes.
You denied having said that life was extinguished and re-created. I guess I, like patiodog, fell off the melon truck. i quote your post above (one of the I infer ones"

'LAyers of rocks in the last billion years that include a great many layers completely devoid of fossils of any kind...I infer that there existed long periods of time when organisms capable of producing fossils did not exists"... Didnt you say this? Then what did you actually mean? if not annihilation and re-evolving from non related simpler forms???? Call me a pedant but Id like us to stay with each other. I have a strong feeling that youre trying out precepts and as we question them, you state that "I never said that"... when all we have to do is return to your earlier posts and dig out your very own quotes. I hate to get legalistic but you are not being consistent with your data, just your desired conclusion

AS DNA discoveries show us that the vast amount of noncoding "junk" DNA can be a records storehouse of a populations migrations and microevolution, I infer that a genetic Uniformitarianism is being uncovered by the biological sciences

acquiunk and patiodog----I suspect that, when sub samples of genetically identical e. coli lost a gene and the ability to metabolise ribose, they are not proving anything to me. Id like to see the experiment really jacked up by taking a number of controls and let them cook for 15 yeaRS, AND at the same time , expose another bunch of aliquots to extremophile conditions (MWAH HAH HA HAAAH) like freezing or very hot or raise the pH , jack up the Nitrogen and carbon. this, to me is a control sub sample dont you agree?
They state that Cichlids seem to evolve everytime they hit a new lake.Maybe this is the reason for the cichlids success. in Africa, maybe they are pre adapted to environmental stresses There are literally hundreds of cichlid species, each with a relatively small home range..

Watching and learning

I posted what was posted to me in another forum. I found these sites, especially the PBS site, very helpful to my understanding. These sites were my attempt to provide you and others with some additional references on which I was relying. I had hoped this might aid your understanding of my context. So much for hope!

You have previously granted me the favor of confirming my claim of the existence of some blank strata in the fossil record: that is sedimentary strata containing zero fossils. You choose not to grant me the favor of explaining why you think those strata were blank. Your excuse is that I'm ignorant of which strata were blank. You are correct. I am ignorant of which ones were blank. But you are not so ignorant. So what is your problem discussing their cause?

My objective in presenting the Gould quote was to illustrate that Darwin himself also attemted to rationalize away difficulties he himself found in his theory.

Yes, I agree there is too much "chaff" in Gould's book. But there is some "wheat" too.



Your refusal to attempt to answer my questions -- seemingly fearful I'm trying somehow to trap you -- and your failure to provide scientific observations/inferences to support your claims, leads me to perceive your explanations as merely your own rationalizations or your own gospel. Possibly they're true; possibly they're not true.



I answered that one by coping what I actually wrote. I'll say it another way. There were repeated, massive species annihilations. After such annihilations, evolution of intelligent life resumed from the residue of surviving species. Often these residues did not contain fossil producing organisms thereby leaving some strata blank.



Yes, I said that. What I mean is what I just wrote above. Yes, I meant that there were massive annihilations of species, but not massive annihilations of all multi-celled living organisms, only annihilation of all fossil producing organisms. I never said anything about the relationship of the survivors to the victims or vice versa.



Yes, I am trying out precepts. But, it isn't my desired conclusion. It is my desired hypothesis. My use of the word targeted was borrowed from you. My hypothesis is that the evolution of intelligent life (e.g., brains and bones) is not strictly a random process of procreation of genome mutations followed by the practical survival process of genome natural selection. I hypothesize an additional influence. I do not hypothesize what that additional influence was/is. I have offered multiple arguments for my hypothesis. I plea again that you attack the hypothesis you know, instead of the person hypothesizing whom you don't know.



That is possible (i.e., it seems to me that it has a finite probability of being true). I don't think it probable (i.e., it seems to me that it is not the most probable explanation).

I'm bowing out, because I've never seen anything to indicate that any of the mass extinctions eliminated all the animal orders. If that's a prerequisite for discussing this, cheers, and good luck.

hey dog, Iasked for Ican to drop by because he has consistantly presented (although he denies the association) the very same arguments of the Intelligent Designers,which is just Biblical Creation with a PHd

Ican , if you read back through the posts--- I am not the one who stated the doubt of targeted evolution. Although I agree with the author of that statement

You condemn science for only relying on discovery and field evidence from which they developed the various models of modern evolutionary theory, yet your own hypothesis, stated above is totally devoid of anything other than "I suspect" (No Data or evidence presented), or
"I hypothesize and additional influence (not even a hint of where your evidence comes from) The reason I suspect that you are of the modern Creationists SChool is that your aapproach to debate is very similar. No mutual evidence that we can share and discuss. It just becomes
"No its not! Yes it is.>> and a dataless argument about scientific findings when you have none to post which even remotely suggest alternative theories"
I have trouble trying to carry on a discussion wherein , Im the only one of we two, who has actually presented data and examples, and yet you proudly admit that you are ignorant of these examples.
OK we will try one mo time.

I have a unit of Tennessee black shale called the Chatanooga formation. The major thickness of this shale is pretty much fossil free. Its a deep sea anoxic shale that was deposited in adeep basin. Surrounding this formation, in the same relative aged , Early to Mid Devonian marine formations are some of the richest fossiliferous units known. So its fossil free in Tennessee and up to southern Ohio. BUT , the early mid Devonian of NY PA west Va Virginia etc that correlate to the Chatanooga are all fossil rich. We operate under rules of correlation. If you look all over the world at the sediment left during a single geologic time, you just may find pockets of fossil free rock. I havent studied many of them because most of the fossil free un its are rich phosphate and uranium deposits. Ive always dealt in rare earths and Uranium from primary(volcanic and metamorphic sources)
But the point is that fossil free units only occupy a small portiion of the worldwide sediment of a particular epoch and really represent only small patches of unique environments. By your using this I cannot see how any grand truth that supports your theories can be discerned.
Geology is, like any other science, loaded with detailed dull, day to day information gathering and analysis and since the lab is an entire planet, when we do development of new stratigraphic, geophysical or geochemical techniques, we usually immediately test them in the field. In this case weve got drill holes all over the world freom which correlations have been made. We compare our seismic velocities against real rocks and we test isotopic ratios against environmental indicators
Other deposits that are often fossil free, are called flysch. These are sub marine landslide deposits that correlate with on-shore seismic triggers. The sediment in and along continental slopes, builds up and forms metastable piles, similar to snow capped ski runs. Every so often a seismic event comes along and shakes the seabottom and submarine landslides deposit these "wildflysch" (after the Germans who first named them) The deposits get uplifted and we can see them in certain areas that are interpreted as ancient marine slopes. Fossil free comes from the fact that everything that was caught in the marine slide was pulverized. Although we do find some minor smashed shel , the units are mostly fossil free. Now is this the discussion you wished to hear? Im still curious how the finding of fossil free horizons leads to such a far out conclusion that life reevolves when the real truth is that these fossil free zones are not worldwide events at all, they are quite local and have really no significance to the condition of life like the mass extinctions show. They are, however, very important tools by which we reconstruct environments of deposition and emplacement
Im glad youve stipulated to the point that , during mass extinctions not all life forms are killed off. This, then, must have included the mammals who made it across the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary that was, until last year, popularly interpreted as a meteor hit.
When we have a fossil of an animal before the mass extinction, and then we find the same fossil animal in sediments younger than the mass extinction, we have concluded from evidence that, this critter made it through. He wasnt wiped out. Can you see the simplicity of all this?
As I said, the process of interpreting the geologic record is dull, its geared for coneheads who like to crunch numbers in massive computers. Its about as exiting as taking a census of all the fossils found. There are lots of grad students doing it because , many of these fossils, like conodonts and foraminiferans, are great tools to find oil and gas.

Ican, I may be wrong thinking according to you, but my methodology of my science WORKS. It is a tool that allows us to find things of commercial value. And the rules posed by the modern evolutionary theory result in us , as prospectors, not having to wander aimlessly around the planet to find minerals and fuels. The fossils and their sequences help to lead us there.

Ill hang in here with you ican because I have work stateside for the next few months.I dont know that Im going to be able to give you what you want to hear because Im a "data" kind of guy and its difficult to test a hypothesis against nothing.
You say we should have experiments to test our conceptual models. Unfortunately the science has been built on discovery and field evidence.though not completely void of any testing and calibration

Many students of paleo have often "tested" a hypothesis that a particular species will change in a predictable way and then go and look for fossils. That gets dangerously close to Creationist thinking but we allow it . Gould himself had some students connect the structures of fossil arthropods to discern the pathways followed by Mississippean Insects to attain flight by the time they reached the Pennsylvanian period . They looked for and found insects from other collections and went and revisited the fossil locations and did environmental reconstructions as to why a little stub of a wing should become a flight instrument. The environmental reconstruction determined that because of the ratios in the oxygen isotopes found in the sediments O18/O16, and the fossil trees around, they determined that it must have been damn hot. So the hypothesis was tested in wind tunnels by creating paper mache dragonflies with bigger and bigger wings as efficient cooling tools. They compared the homemade insects with fossils and then determined through some decent logic when they were certain that many dragonflies could fly. This was done in a very crude but clever manner. They looked for dragonfly fossils that only occured in lake sediments, the theory being that the only way they could have gotten to the middle of a lake was by flying there. This was reported in an old Discovery magazine back in the early 80s when I was teaching full time. I thought this was a very cool, hands on lab experiment about morphological change. There are always little experiments that attempt to conjoin some principle or another but, for the most part, paleo is still a "stamp collecting" exercise. I get to use the results in an applied manner and have not yet,, been left down. In the harder geo disciplines like geo chemistry, we apply uniformitarian principles and state that, because, in todays world, when we see that O18 is more prevelant than O16 in new sediment it represents a warmer climate. Then we go to the Greenland ice Cap, where we have an ice record over 200K years long period of ice with isotopes waiting to help us interpret the recent paleoclimateworldwide climate(Thats why most geologists dont get excited about "global warming", )
If I were you though, I would separate my thinking from that 'worldwide Christianity" link. You can see how Im dubious about your scholarship when you post stuff like that. Their Intelligent Design leaning has led them to express some things that are contrary to good evidence and reason
"we recognize that fossils of similar animals occur at different layers, however (they) reject that a later form of an animal, no matter how close the resemblance, has any relationship to an earlier one.
I have no idea what model they are working from but it is an easy one to test. I would look for fossils of unchanged species like Limulus or many sharks and ask whether the WCG guys would stipulate that they are associated because they are essentially the same species. You know, just turn their argument around.

YES! Your last post has more real information relevant to my hypothesis than any post I've encountered in any forum discussion to date.
THANK YOU!

It will take me a while to digest it all and especially its implications. To that end, I'm going to print it out to study it.

I'm sure I'll have lots of questions later.

DISCLAIMERS & CLAIMERS
I know very little if anything about creationism. I do know it comes in various forms and flavors none of which I am capable of summarizing accurately. Some claim all that exists was created in 6, 24-hour earth days. Some say, no, it was all created in 6, 1000-year days. Still others claim no, it was all created in 6, 2.4-billion-year days (i.e., in 14.4 billion years). Still others .... well never mind, because all of that is irrelevant to my hypothesis.

I assume that our observable/inferable universe (OO/IU) started evolving less than 32.6 billion years ago. Some allege 10 to 20 billion, others allege 13.7 billion, still others allege 13.2 billion. I couldn't care less what the true number is. All I care about that number is that it is finite. I picked "32.6 billion" only as a personal mathematical convenience. One Megaparsec = 3.26 million light years, so with a 32.6 billion year old universe, the radius of OO/IU comes out neatly to a maximum of 10,000 megaparsecs. If nothing else, I like neat.

Yes, I assume OO/IU in general and life on earth in particular evolved and was not created.

My hypothesis is about how and not about if life on earth evolved.

While your last post may convince me otherwise, my current hypothesis is that life on this earth evolved by random mutations of procreating genomes plus a 2nd influence of some kind plus natural selection.

Along with other comments, I'll summarize why I hypothesize this in my next post.

CURRENT HYPOTHESIS

My current hypothesis is that life on this earth evolved by random mutations of procreating genomes plus a 2nd influence of some kind plus natural selection. Henceforth, I'll refer to that hypothesized 2nd Influence as 2ndI.

WHY

There is alleged to be a 300 gene difference between mouse and human genomes.

I think that there is probably a greater gene difference than that between the genome of the common ancestor of the genomes of mice and humans, and the genome of humans. I'll call that common ancestor genome, CA.

I think there is probably an even greater gene difference than that between the genome of that billion year old organism, whose genome was ancestor to CA, and CA. I'll call that billion year old ancestor, BA.

The number of possible, different sequences of bases among 300 genes = S = [(((4^3)^9000)^300)] = 10^(4,876,685) which is much much greater than 10^(1,000,200), which I am calling a "moogol" times a googol x a googol [i.e., 10^(1,000,000) x 10^(100) x 10^(100); a moogol = 1 followed by a million zeros; a googol = 1 followed by 100 zeros].

In that one billion year period of evolution of BA to CA to Humans, the evolution process was interrupted at least five times when both large numbers of species were anihilated and large fractions of the populations of surviving species were "naturally selected" to die.

The number of procreated mutations that occurred during that one billion year period = M. I'll write more about M, shortly.

The total number of genome sequences that could produce intelligent life roughly equivalent to that of human intelligence = I. I'll write more about I, shortly.

What is the probability of occurrence of any one of those particular genome sequences that could produce intelligent human-like life, actually being procreated without 2ndI?

That probability = P = M x I/S.

For example, if M = 1 googol, I = 1 googol, and S = 1 googol x 1 googol x 1 moogol, then P = 1/moogol = 1 moogolth.

What would be required to obtain an M = 1 googol assuming zero interruptions?

Well, there are 3600 x 24 x 365.25 = 31,557,700 seconds per year. Let's exaggerate and assume 0.316880878 mutations per procreating genome per second (i.e., almost one every 3.2 seconds). Then there would be 10,000,000 mutations per procreating genome per year. That implies there would be 10 million times one billion, mutations per procreating genome per billion years. Which is the same as saying (10^7) x (10^9) = 10^16 (i.e., 1 followed by 16 zeros) mutations per procreating genome per one billion years.

What was the population of procreating genomes during that one billion years?

Let's super exaggerate and assume the average population of procreating genomes at any one time over that billion years was 10^84 (i.e., a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion). So the number of procreating genome mutations per billion years would be M = 10^16 x 10^84 = 10^100.

So far so good!

So let's eggagerate again and assume that that of the S = 10^(1,000,200) sequences, there are I = 10^100 of those total possible sequences that could produce intelligent life roughly equivalent to that of human intelligence.

Now we're cookin'!

P = M x I / S = 10^100 x 10^100 / (10^1,000,200) = 1/10^(1,000,000) = 1 moogolth.

What? After all that, the probability of human-like intelligence actually being procreated without 2ndI is merely 1 moogolth.

Said another way, the probability of human-like intelligence not being procreated without 2ndI is 1- 1 moogolth = 0. followed by one million 9s. Hmmmm. That's close enough to certainty for me.

That's why I hypothesize the existence of 2ndI.

REQUEST

Please everyone, do not waste your time telling me in varous ways that my calculation is invalid or that I am biased or ignorant. Rather please explain exactly what in my calculation you think is invalid and why you think so.

ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT I THINK EXISTS WITHOUT A 2ND INFLUENCE.

Natural selection does not itself procreate mutations of genomes. It can merely terminate/anihilate them. Mutations are caused by a great many factors including the act of procreation itself. It is alleged by many evolutionary biologists that the number of mutations per second that occur per procreating genome is much less than one every 3.2 seconds. What is the current alleged number? Does any one know?

I'll react to this a piece at a time.



NOT GUILTY
I don't condemn science; I condemn psuedo-science: science that claims a theory is true and accepted until one or more of its implications are proven false.

If it were otherwise then the following theory would be claimed by scientists as true and scientifically accepted because one or more of its implications has not been proven false.

God exists.

That theory is certainly not claimed by scientists speaking as scientists as true and scientifiically accepted.

Einstein's theories of relativity were not claimed by scientists as true and scientifically accepted until they were able to prove by experiment that the major implications of those theories were true.

Even Einstein had a problem fully appreciating a major implication of his work: the universe is finite and expanding. It took Friedman 8 months for him to convince Einstein. To avoid that implication, Einstein had invented a particular cosmological constant. He did it to specifically avoid the implication of a finite expanding universe. After Hubble's experimental results, Einstein called his constant his "greatest blunder".

Einstein is also among those credited with the quote: "absence of proof is not proof of absence." I'm confident he would also agree that absence of proof is not proof of truth.

GUILTY


It's true in this forum. I am attempting to rectify this in this forum by my WHY above.

GUILTY


I think we are both guilty of this before your last post.

SO DO I


Me too!

Not "proudly admit" just admit. I'm attempting to be honest.

I don't get why this post is still going on. This debate has been done.

People who know science know that evolution is a scientific fact. People who are religious debate this on religious grounds. People who are scientific and religious (and there are a few) must make a choice whether they are scientific or religious.

It is impossible to win what is essentially a religious argument. In society the real debate has been won by the science in support of evolution.

Even state legislatures understand that. Why bother arguing here?

People who don't accept the progress of science at this point will never accept it.

well, Ill let others decide who has actually presented any evidence.


What criteria do you use to pronounce something as pseudo science. Im curious.

You seem to agree that evolution is a fact. Your only point that splits from the road is that you feel its directed, because you feel that there hasnt been enough time to have evolution occur by random mechanism. to this point Ive asked for some rationale about how you get to know whats on the mind of the Universal plan maker, and you keep dodging by trying to make a number of us refute your claim even though theres NOTHING THERE TO REFUTE.
Ive given you all kinds of examples and evidewnce from fossil records, this has no weight with you. OK , Im used to discussing such propositions in front of state education boards wherein Creationists have entered the field to try to have "ALternative therories
to evolution presented in our high school curricula"
The reason Im hanging in with you is that Ive smelled you out and your trying to dress your stuff up in the robes of a scholar. However youre not doing a good job .
Ive alrewady caught you in 2 copouts wherein youve claimed evidence for one of your points. However, when closely inspected, you arent even sure of the evidence and then you semi-deftly try to dismiss your points by a wee bit a smoke and mirrors.
Ive presented evidence from whales to horses, continental drift through convergent evolutio patterns and , whats survived mass extinctions . Ill keep adding more of this "psewudo science" because , thats how the quilt was sewn. Were slowly experimenting with evolution in populations of rapidly reproducing organisms. We havent been able to track back DNA beyond a limit provided by amino acid typing from osteocalcin and certain arthropod tests. Thus we are left only with a fossil record supported by paleo DNA from the Oligocene and later.

Much of the paleo data is supported by other disciplines like geophysics, which has reconstructed the splitting of continents is tne Mesozoic and this data coincides with much of the die off anmd repopulation of the dissected landmasses. Do you doubt the veracity of this evidence? Since it is primarily discovery based and not experimental.When Isidore Zeits and Ed Hubbert first started suspecting that all the ocean floor sewdiments that originated from the mid oceanic ridges had a definite pattern of polarity, they used crayolas to color the magnetic declination and polarity. They posited that the seafloors were spreading. Later, deep sea drilling confirmed this (also evidenc e based- but its sort of like a big lab experiment witha billion dollar budget).
I guess you are impressed by experimental efforts over discoveries.
However I dont think i can provide any answers to your philosophical requirements, that being
"evolution is directed" , no one has yet found ay data that supports an intelligent plan, since the fossil record is rather chaotic and there doesnt seem to be any "onward and upward" trend for the greaqtest masses of species. In fact , the stripping of certain gene patterns like hOx seem to suggest that simpler forms that accomplish the same task of HOx transformation are occuring through time (Cohn 1997)
Keep on thes sunny side ican