cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Please note how TWM totally ignores every piece of evidence offered against his bullshit.

  It is what all creationists do
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  One of the major differences between mammals and reptiles is in our ears.

  We have three small bones that transmit sound to the inner ear. Technically called "auditory ossicles", they are the malleus (hammer), incus (anvil), and stapes (stirrup).

  Reptiles have just one bone in their ears, the stapes. The additional ossicles in our ears act as a lever to amplify the compressions and rarefactions of the air. The challenge for evolution is to explain where these additional mammalian bones came from.

  What reptiles lack in the ear they more than make up for in their jaw. Our lower jaw is made of just one bone but reptiles have a whole array of them. Since evolution frequently adapts existing features and puts them to new uses, could it be that jaw bones of our reptile-like ancestors have been modified to do the job of hearing instead of chewing?

  Evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology and paleontology all combine to prove that this is the case.

  There are many transitional fossils that illustrate this fascinating aspect of evolution. In this post I want to highlight three of them.

  Dimetrodon lived between 290 and 270 million years ago. It belongs to a group of species known as the synapsids which are reptile-like but more closely related to mammals than modern reptiles. It was already extinct 40 million years before the dinosaurs first appeared.

  You can see from the picture that it had an impressive collection of bones in its lower jaw. The articular bone hinged against the quadrate bone of the skull and both abutted against the stapes transmitting sounds from the jaw to the inner ear. The dentary bone which holds the simple teeth is not involved in the joint.
  

  As we come forward in time the fossil record shows all the non-dentary bones reducing in size until they become just tiny splints in the inside back of the jaw. At the same time the dentary bone gets bigger until it becomes the entire jaw. As synapsids became more active in chewing with their differentiated teeth they needed a stronger bone. One bone is better than many bones stitched together.

  Diarthrognathus provides us with an exceptional example of this stage of evolution. It lived around 200 million years ago. Its name literally means "two jaw joint". Its dentary bone has expanded upward and made contact with the squamosal bone of the skull to form a new jaw joint. However the old articular/quadrate joint is still fully intact.

  We could not ask for a more perfect example of a transitional form.

  

  Moving further along the timeline the fossils show that the old articular/quadrate joint becomes so diminished that it no longer serves that purpose and the dentary/squamosal joint takes over completely. So what became of the quadrate and articular bones? They continue to reduce, become detached from the jaw and move into the middle ear to become the incus and malleus respectively.

  In 2007 Luo Zhexi and his colleagues described a fossil called Yanoconodon from the Yixian Formation in China. It is a true mammal that lived around 122 million years ago and has been labelled as "The Rosetta Stone" of mammalian ear evolution. The amazing thing about this creature is that it has the tiny auditory ossicles like any modern mammal but they are still fused to the lower jaw.

  Supporting the evidence for ear evolution is the interesting fact that in the human embryo the incus and malleus bones first appear in the jaw and move up to the middle ear during development. Even after birth the little bones may retain a few lingering filaments of so-called Meckel’s cartilage.

  Dr Karen Sears investigated the embryology of opossums and discovered that the process is slowed in the case of that species. They are born with the incus and malleus still part of the jaw and looking a lot like the arrangement of a reptile jaw. As they grow up the bones migrate the middle ear as in all other mammals.

  This story that is told so eloquently by the fossil record as well as in the embryonic development of modern species is an amazing example of evolution of a major transition.

  When creationist demand a fossil of a creature with "half an ear" we can actually provide them in abundance.

  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Let’s talk about chimp to man. Evolutionist say that the difference between man and chimp is 1.5 %. Does not seem much. What we need to find out is how much is much. When we hear that there is a 1 ½ % difference between man and chimp it seems not to be much. But we must take into account what 1 ½% exactly means. If there are three billion base pairs in a human 1 ½% calculates to 45 million base pairs or 15 million codons. It is estimated that it would take 10X10^21 mutations to get five condons to mutate in the right order. One and half percent does not look like much but when analyzed, it becomes overwhelming evidence against man ever evolving from a chimp.

  Difficult to imagine how you could write a short post that displays more ignorance of genetics, logic and evolution.

  Jaw-dropping!
  
  
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  What we have is micro evolution [the beaks of finches changing size and shape] passed as proof of macro evolution [man evolving from a chimp]. _ WTM

  When wilfully ignorant creationists talk about men evolving from chimps wise people just smile condescendingly and walk away.
  
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Unlike you WTM I don't copy-paste. I wrote every word of that myself.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  ...
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  if fish evolved into amphibians [animals that live in sea and on land] as evolutionist teach, then there would be millions of fossils showing the gradual transition from fins into feet and legs. But we do not have any. - WTM

  One of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.

  Fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads. Fish have no necks; their heads are attached to their shoulders by a series of bony plates. Land-dwelling animals all have necks; their heads can move independently of their shoulders. Fish have scales and fins, land animals have limbs with fingers, toes wrists and ankles. Fish use gills to breathe under water, land-living animals have lungs to breathe air.

  These sound like insurmountable problems, but if evolution is true there must have been creatures that made the leap successfully. In 2004 Neil Shubin and his team set themselves the challenge of finding exactly this transitional fossil. What they discovered was astonishing.

  Their success was not entirely down to good luck. The critical time period was already known. Fossils from rocks 385 million years old all look like fish, younger rocks dated at 365 million years old reveal fossils that are all recognisably amphibian or reptile. To find a relative of the transitional species between fish and land-dwelling animals Shubin knew he had to concentrate on rocks that were 375 million years old, preferably laid down in an ancient river or stream and which were now exposed on the surface.

  Initially Shubin and his colleague Ted Daeschler were looking at Alaska and the Yukon as a potential site but when Daeschler examined a geological map he came across a diagram that that in Shubin’s words took their breath away. It showed a region in of the Canadian Arctic that fulfilled all the criteria they were looking for. It had a large layer of exposed Late Devonian rock of exactly the right age. The rock had been formed in a freshwater delta and even better it was previously unexplored by vertebrate paleontologists.

  In the end it took four expeditions to Ellesmere Island over a period of six years to find what they were looking for, but when they did it exceeded all expectations. It would hardly be possible to make up a fossil more perfect as a transition between fish and land-living animals than Tiktaalik.

  Like a fish it has scales on its back, gills and fins with webbing for paddling. Unlike any fish it has a flat head with eyes on top like a crocodile as well as sharp teeth and well developed jaws. It also has ribs, lungs enabling it to breathe out of water as well as a neck that allowing it to move its head independently of its shoulders.

  The most interesting feature of Tiktaalik is in the bones inside its front fins. As well as fish-like ray bones it has an arrangement of sturdy bones that you would recognise from any tetrapod alive today. Think about the bones of your limbs, we have a large bone – humerus or femur; two smaller bones – radius and ulna or tibia and fibula; a collection of smaller bones – carpals or tarsals and then our digits – fingers or toes. All limbed creatures from whales to penguin to birds and horses have variations of the same basic arrangement. Here, 375 million years ago was a descendant of a fish that had already evolved this body plan. The joints are all there too with a shoulder, elbow and wrist.

  
  .....

  When the details were studied more closely something astonishing was discovered. The structure of the bones in Tiktaalik’s wrist indicated that he could do push-ups. The elbow was capable of bending like ours and the wrist could bend so the lower end of the limb was flat on the ground. Close examination of the shoulder bones and the underside of the upper arm revealed massive crests and scars where large pectoral muscles attached.

  Imagine Tiktaalik, up to 9 feet long in shallow pools surrounded by even bigger predators. It was a fish-eat-fish world. One survival strategy was to get bigger and get armour, Tiktaalik stumbled on an alternative – get out the water.

  Look at your hand, open and close your fingers, flex your wrist back and forward. You are using joints that first appeared inside the fins of a fish like Tiktaalik.

  This is only one story about transitional species - there are plenty more. The lineages leading to modern whales and horses are particularly rich in transitional forms. What makes this story so amazing is that Shubin and his team didn’t just stumble on Tiktaalik. They used what was already known about evolution and geology to make a prediction. They knew that the transition from fish to land happened 375 million years ago. They knew where rocks of this age were to be found and they went to that place and found precisely what they predicted must exist.

  Contrary to creationist claims there is an embarrassment of riches of fossils but Tiktaalik ranks as an A-List celebrity in the zoo of ancient creatures.

  Neil Shubin's discovery of the fossil Tiktaalik. It is an amazing intermediate form between fish and land animals complete with both lungs and gills as well as ribs, a jaw, a flat head and teeth. Crucially it displayed the beginnings of leg bones that are common to all modern tetrapods. It had a humerus, radius, ulna and wrist bones but also retained the fin-ray bones of it's fish ancestors.

  Tiktaalik is just one of many fossils that display the journey of our ancestors from the sea to life on dry land.

  
  

  This picture shows just a few samples of many fossils that have been discovered from this important period of life's history between 385 and 360 million years ago.

  
  

  More than 2000 specimens of Eusthenopteron have been collected from the same location at the Miguasha cliffs. These were surface-hunting fish and probably never came onto the land but the front fin was supported by bones identifiable as a humerus, ulna and radius, and the rear fins by a femur, fibula and tibia although bones distal to a wrist or ankle are not present.

  
  

  Acanthostega had a number of primitive features. One of those was the proportion of the bones in the forearm. In most tetrapods, the ulna is longer than the radius but in the fish it’s the other way round - and that was the condition in Acanthostega. It was basically still an inhabitant of the water. Its limbs were too floppy and its backbone too weak to support itself on land. Not only that, but despite the presence of lungs, Acanthostega had very fish-like gills. Possibly the most amazing feature of this species was the fact that it had eight fingers.

  Nearer the amphibian side of the gap 20 million years later comes Ichthyostega discovered in Greenland in 1932 and buried there in the days when Greenland was at the equator. This creature had seven toes.
  

  
  

  Icthyostega is a really enigmatic animal. It’s got some features in which some limbs elements, like the humerus, are more primitive than that of Acanthostega, and yet other aspects of the anatomy of Icthyosthega suggest it was more terrestrial. Acanthostega seems to be almost certainly entirely aquatic, but Icthyostega has a really robust front limb that looks as though it could at least raise the front body off the ground, whereas the hind limb is a paddle and points backwards towards the animal’s tail.

  This is just a very brief introduction to a few of the stars of this amazing collection of fossils. Those who continue to claim that there are no transitional species really have not looked at the evidence. Our ancestors developed lungs, legs, necks craniums and inner ears that made life on land possible. These fossils are not isolated examples. Many of these species are represented by hundreds or even thousands of specimens.

  Life experimented with various formations of limb bones - TuIerpeton had six fingers - and today the same pattern of big bone >> two thinner bones >> lots of bones >> digits is the basic shape of the limbs of thousands of modern species from bats to birds to horses and humans.

  
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I was commenting on your ostentatious display of ignorance not your character.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  When a creationist implies that evolution involves a chimp becoming a human it is a sure sign they have never read a single page of a single book by a serious scientist in their life.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  There is an embarrassment of riches of fossils showing the transition from from ray fins via lobe fins to limbs.

  When a creationist claims such fossils don't exist it is proof they are living in a fact-free bubble.