Most of have 3 types of color sensitive cones. However, “ Tetrachromats have a fourth type of cone featuring a photopigment that allows perception of more colors that aren’t on the typically visible spectrum.” This is not merely a duplication of an existing cone, but a new one. Also, tetrachromacy did not come from earlier human species since it was lost. It evolved again. Happens a lot in nature.
The point about supernumerary organs is that there is a starting point for a new organ to arise. It’s not like a new functioning organ is going to appear all at once.
Very true. That is how I understood @scd to mean “new genes.” We have to remember his understanding of this topic is sub-rudimentary, so his use of terminology may be difficult to understand.
Your use of “prove” constitutes bad faith. In science, nothing is considered to be really proven.
It’s not about faith at all. It’s about testing the predictions of hypotheses, something YOU are completely unwilling to do, because you have no faith. ¿Porqué es eso?
It is evidence, not proof. It is reason, not faith.
It takes “faith” to assume you are not an avatar in a video game simulation. It is reasonable to assume that the world is real and the evidence supports common descent.
actually even according to evolutionery biologists like dawkins evolution already has false predictions. he claim for instance that even a single out of place fossil should falsify evolution. yet we do find such fossils and nobody cares. so we have 2 possibilities: common descent is already false according to some evolutionery biologists, or we cant realy test it.
i think that many thinks that its more logical to believe that human didnt evolved from a fish ancestor
no i dont. a tipical new generation has about 100-150 new mutations. i was very generous.
No, there is not a single out of place fossil. You have demonstrated that you do not understand what an “out of place fossil” would be, so the fact that you believe they exist is meaningless.
OK, good. That’s reasonably accurate, AFAIK.
Now, some follow up questions. They may seem unrelated, but bear with me:
Do you believe the human genome contains junk DNA? About what portion of the human genome do you believe is junk?
Since you admit you have no definition, the claim can be dismissed out of hand. It’s as if I said “The existence of Bubaquantula proves there is no God,” and when you ask me what Bubaquantula even is, I reply “You have to define it.” Would you find that a convincing argument?
OK, so tell me how you can reconcile these claims:
Most of the genome might be functional.
Only 1 in a billion mutations are functional.
Each human is born with 100-150 new mutations that did not exist in their parents.
Nobody cares what you claim about out-of-place fossils because your definition of an out-of-place fossil includes any modern fish and many modern mammals. Even the ones that are still alive.
ok. so to me out of place fossils is any fossil that doesnt fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. as i said before we can represent this in numbers. so the track fossil i gave back then is out of place since it doesnt fit with the hierarchy (digits before transitional links between fins and digits).
can you be more specific? to be clear i was talking about new function. or actually a new anatomical trait. do you think that the chance to get such a trait is higher than one in a billion?
One could argue the allosaurus fossil some rich Fundies donated to Ken Ham’s Creation Museum is an out of place fossil. Of course it didn’t start off being out of place.
It does fit the hierarchy. You just don’t understand the hierarchy. There are animals alive today who still have fins. According to your definition they are also “out of order.” Seriously.
That’s not what you said. OK, so you are now changing your argument. Fine.
I have no idea. Please show the math you used to calculate that number. Helpful hint: Counting the number of people walking around who have feathers is NOT how one would calculate it.
No, it isn’t stronger. Your point is that if evolution is true then we should see new parts emerging over just a handful of generations. That obviously isn’t true.
Let’s use an analogy. We want to measure the weight of a 5 inch cubed concrete brick. We give out 1 million identical concrete bricks to 1 million people, all of which have a old school two pan balance. They each put a 200 g mass on the other side of the balance, and the pan with the concrete brick is still the lowest meaning that the known mass we put on the balance is less than the mass of the concrete brick. Since we did this with 1 million balances, this means the 5 inch cubed concrete brick is greater than 0.2 kg * 1 million, or 200,000 kg, since we add all the masses that the 1 million people used. Is this right?
I think everyone is giving @scd a hard time unfairly here. His definition of “out of place” is fairly reasonable. It would be more reasonable to transfer it from fossils to characters. An out of place character is one in which the oldest known exemplar of a derived state is older than the oldest known exemplar of a primitive state. The better the fossil record the fewer of these we expect to find. But we certainly expect to find some. The greater the temporal gap between derived and primitive states, the less we expect one. A precambrian rabbit, for example, would be exceedingly surprising and would be a serious problem.
Unfortunately, @scd’s definition of “out of place” is, um, all over the place.
I might be a bit more charitable to @scd if the three ‘examples’ of out of place fossils he initially provided hadn’t consisted of (i) a trace fossil, (ii) a fossil having no lineage against which it could be out of place, and (iii) a fossil of unknown age.
the transitional link between fins and digits (or limb if you want) is the tiktaalik fins. and yet they appearing after the first digits (the tetrapod tracks fossil). so they dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy.
no. its just was a calculation. not a prediction.
we can discuss about the authenticity of these fossils but remember that according to evolutionery biologists like dawkins and others we only need a single out of place fossil to falsify common descent. so do you agree or disagree with dawkins and others about this point?
I’d be very happy to have a discussion about their authenticity. The problem is that you don’t engage in such discussion. You deleted the pertinent details from my post in your reply, responding as if they weren’t there, and are now trying to change the subject:
Yes, but it would have to be a definitely and considerably out-of-place fossil, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian - no ambiguity over what it was, no doubt about its age, no possibility that the lineage is just a bit older than we think and we simply haven’t found remains of the earlier organisms. Oh, and actual fossils, not just trace fossils that could be generated by something else - and of course we’re referring to fossils that are out-of-place as regards time, not ones where we’re merely unsure of their phylogeny.
Do you agree that none of your examples qualify as out-of-place fossils using Dawkins’ and other biologists’ criteria?
I’m perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion on the subject of out-of-place fossils - if I can find some-one honest and capable to engage with.
