Throwing 1,000 Consecutive Heads

rossum

Well-known member
I got a little lost in this one.(the new becoming the old pile). But your population didn't increase. You started with 5000 cards and ended with 5000 cards. You may have successful breeders but the numbers are stagnant. How does this reflect evolution that starts out with one naked self replicating cell and eventually slowly blossoms into what we have now?
I start with 5,000 cards, but I end up with approximately 5,000 cards. The population varies because you are flipping a coin. It is unlikely that you will have exactly 5,000 cards. Maybe 4,948 or 5,217 for example.

Evolution is a little more complex. Depending on how well the organism is adapted to its environment there may be as much as a 60% chance of heads, or as little as a 40% chance of heads. In the first case, the population will increase while in the second case the population will decrease. An increasing population will eventually be limited by the food supply or perhaps by predators. A decreasing population will go extinct unless something changes.

For most populations for most of the time, the population size stays about the same. That does not mean that there cannot be temporary changes. Human populations dropped during the Black Death, people died before having children, thus rolling tails. Human populations increased after the development of agriculture, the chance of rolling heads increased because there was a larger and more reliable food supply.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I start with 5,000 cards, but I end up with approximately 5,000 cards. The population varies because you are flipping a coin. It is unlikely that you will have exactly 5,000 cards. Maybe 4,948 or 5,217 for example.

Evolution is a little more complex. Depending on how well the organism is adapted to its environment there may be as much as a 60% chance of heads, or as little as a 40% chance of heads. In the first case, the population will increase while in the second case the population will decrease. An increasing population will eventually be limited by the food supply or perhaps by predators. A decreasing population will go extinct unless something changes.

For most populations for most of the time, the population size stays about the same. That does not mean that there cannot be temporary changes. Human populations dropped during the Black Death, people died before having children, thus rolling tails. Human populations increased after the development of agriculture, the chance of rolling heads increased because there was a larger and more reliable food supply.
Then overpopulation should not be an issue. Look at China for an example.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Then overpopulation should not be an issue. Look at China for an example.
It is more of a comparison of population densities between hunter-gatherer groups and agricultural groups. With agriculture a group can sustain a greater population density.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Why? We do not get to tell nature how many fossils we would like to see.
Because those animals would have fossilized at about the same rate. It is you are not going to find them at the same rate because more in one group got destroyed in a earthquake , flood etc. But there should be out of the trillions of the transitionals, that there should be enough of them from some groups to show a pattern of their lineage. Or you can not say enough of the fully evolved one's left fossils but none of the transitionals left fossils and since the transitionals would have greatly outnumbered the ones they do find common sense says more of the transitionals would be found because they greatly outnumbered the other ones and bone fossilizes at about the same rate for the transitionals as the others.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Because those animals would have fossilized at about the same rate.
No they would not. Soft bodied animals do not fossilise at the same rate as animals with teeth, hard shells or bones. Hard parts fossilise a lot more easily. Research conodonts for a good example.
 

Nathan P

Active member
No they would not. Soft bodied animals do not fossilise at the same rate as animals with teeth, hard shells or bones. Hard parts fossilise a lot more easily. Research conodonts for a good example.
We are not talking about soft bodied ones compared hard shell or bone ones and instead we are talking about the ones that would have fossilized at about the same rate, and in this case we are talking about the bone ones and we are not throwing the soft bodied ones in there. You should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones out of the trillions if not quadrillions of the transitional ones that would have fossilized.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Because those animals would have fossilized at about the same rate. It is you are not going to find them at the same rate because more in one group got destroyed in a earthquake , flood etc. But there should be out of the trillions of the transitionals, that there should be enough of them from some groups to show a pattern of their lineage. Or you can not say enough of the fully evolved one's left fossils but none of the transitionals left fossils and since the transitionals would have greatly outnumbered the ones they do find common sense says more of the transitionals would be found because they greatly outnumbered the other ones and bone fossilizes at about the same rate for the transitionals as the others.
But fossilisation is random, and there are going to be some species that get relatively many animal fossilised and some that get none at all.

To illustrate how rare fossils are, we have 32 fossil remains of T. rex, and that is out of an estimated population of billions, living over a few millions years. The total number of dinosaur fossils found is around 11000, from around 1000 species, so an average of 11 members of each species has been found as a fossil.

The idea that we "should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones" is nonsense; we just do not have that many fossils!

It is also worth pointing out that the rate of evolution is very variable. Some species are around for a long time with hardly any change, some change rapidly. Naturally we will get more fossils from the former than the latter. Your trillions of transitionals is considering every slight change between one species and the next. Fossil remains are not good enough to show much of that; many are incomplete for one thing, but individuals vary within a species anyway, and indeed one individual will vary across its lifetime, and deciding if a fossil is a new species, a potential transitional, is often debatable.

Plus, of course, once a fossil is identified as a distinct species between two others, creationists then reject it as a transitional, and demand the transitionals between it and the parent and child species.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones out of the trillions if not quadrillions of the transitional ones that would have fossilized.
For some species we do have exactly that. There is a picture of trillions of fossils here. The fossils are very small, but there are a great many of them.
 

Nathan P

Active member
For some species we do have exactly that. There is a picture of trillions of fossils here. The fossils are very small, but there are a great many of them.
That says nothing about them being transitionals and all it says is there are different shaped ones regarding the coccoliths. That is what they are, are coccoliths and they have similar shapes but no evidence of them having evolved from another species.
 

Nathan P

Active member
But fossilisation is random, and there are going to be some species that get relatively many animal fossilised and some that get none at all.

To illustrate how rare fossils are, we have 32 fossil remains of T. rex, and that is out of an estimated population of billions, living over a few millions years. The total number of dinosaur fossils found is around 11000, from around 1000 species, so an average of 11 members of each species has been found as a fossil.

The idea that we "should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones" is nonsense; we just do not have that many fossils!

It is also worth pointing out that the rate of evolution is very variable. Some species are around for a long time with hardly any change, some change rapidly. Naturally we will get more fossils from the former than the latter. Your trillions of transitionals is considering every slight change between one species and the next. Fossil remains are not good enough to show much of that; many are incomplete for one thing, but individuals vary within a species anyway, and indeed one individual will vary across its lifetime, and deciding if a fossil is a new species, a potential transitional, is often debatable.

Plus, of course, once a fossil is identified as a distinct species between two others, creationists then reject it as a transitional, and demand the transitionals between it and the parent and child species.
But fossilisation is random, and there are going to be some species that get relatively many animal fossilised and some that get none at all.

To illustrate how rare fossils are, we have 32 fossil remains of T. rex, and that is out of an estimated population of billions, living over a few millions years. The total number of dinosaur fossils found is around 11000, from around 1000 species, so an average of 11 members of each species has been found as a fossil.

The idea that we "should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones" is nonsense; we just do not have that many fossils!

It is also worth pointing out that the rate of evolution is very variable. Some species are around for a long time with hardly any change, some change rapidly. Naturally we will get more fossils from the former than the latter. Your trillions of transitionals is considering every slight change between one species and the next. Fossil remains are not good enough to show much of that; many are incomplete for one thing, but individuals vary within a species anyway, and indeed one individual will vary across its lifetime, and deciding if a fossil is a new species, a potential transitional, is often debatable.

Plus, of course, once a fossil is identified as a distinct species between two others, creationists then reject it as a transitional, and demand the transitionals between it and the parent and child species.
You are reading too quick and I did not say there should be billions if not trillions of them that would have fossilized
But fossilisation is random, and there are going to be some species that get relatively many animal fossilised and some that get none at all.

To illustrate how rare fossils are, we have 32 fossil remains of T. rex, and that is out of an estimated population of billions, living over a few millions years. The total number of dinosaur fossils found is around 11000, from around 1000 species, so an average of 11 members of each species has been found as a fossil.

The idea that we "should have billions if not trillions of the bone transitional ones" is nonsense; we just do not have that many fossils!

It is also worth pointing out that the rate of evolution is very variable. Some species are around for a long time with hardly any change, some change rapidly. Naturally we will get more fossils from the former than the latter. Your trillions of transitionals is considering every slight change between one species and the next. Fossil remains are not good enough to show much of that; many are incomplete for one thing, but individuals vary within a species anyway, and indeed one individual will vary across its lifetime, and deciding if a fossil is a new species, a potential transitional, is often debatable.

Plus, of course, once a fossil is identified as a distinct species between two others, creationists then reject it as a transitional, and demand the transitionals between it and the parent and child species.
I did not tell you we should have billions if not trillions of the transitional ones that would have fossilized and then have been found. I said out of the trillions that would have fossilized there should be enough of them that would be found to establish a pattern of their lineage . And using T. rex as your example above you would have some that would have fossilized at a greater rate than T.rex and thus have left many more fossils. Even using your 11000 fossils found of T.rex above how come they do not have a few hundred fossils of at least some transtionals?
 

rossum

Well-known member
That says nothing about them being transitionals
Where is your evidence? We still have equivalent modern species, but we do not have those old species. We can tell from the shapes of their skeletons.

and all it says is there are different shaped ones regarding the coccoliths. That is what they are, are coccoliths and they have similar shapes but no evidence of them having evolved from another species.
The DNA of modern coccoliths is evidence enough. Observation of other living species is enough. Failure to observe any deity creating new species, or of any visiting aliens making new species on earth, is enough.

Science works on the simplest explanation of the available evidence. On that basis all those old species are transitional.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Where is your evidence? We still have equivalent modern species, but we do not have those old species. We can tell from the shapes of their skeletons.


The DNA of modern coccoliths is evidence enough. Observation of other living species is enough. Failure to observe any deity creating new species, or of any visiting aliens making new species on earth, is enough.

Science works on the simplest explanation of the available evidence. On that basis all those old species are transitional.
It does not say anything about the dna being proof.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
You are reading too quick and I did not say there should be billions if not trillions of them that would have fossilized

I did not tell you we should have billions if not trillions of the transitional ones that would have fossilized and then have been found. I said out of the trillions that would have fossilized there should be enough of them that would be found to establish a pattern of their lineage . And using T. rex as your example above you would have some that would have fossilized at a greater rate than T.rex and thus have left many more fossils. Even using your 11000 fossils found of T.rex above how come they do not have a few hundred fossils of at least some transtionals?
You are reading too quick and I did not say there were 11000 fossils of T. rex. I said there were just 32. The figure of 11000 is for all dinosaurs. The average number of fossils for each known dinosaur is just 11; we have an unusually large number of T. rex fossils. Seems pretty obvious to me that from these numbers there will be plenty of dinosaurs for which we have no fossils.

Bear in mind that evolutionary families have been constructed. We do have intermediates between some fossils. See here:
 

rossum

Well-known member
It does not say anything about the dna being proof.
This is science. Science does not do proof, science does evidence. That I why I talked about "evidence". Proof is for mathematics. You need to be aware of the differences between mathematics and science.

Coccolith fossils and DNA are sufficient evidence.

If you have alternative evidence to show us, then please do so.
 

Nathan P

Active member
This is science. Science does not do proof, science does evidence. That I why I talked about "evidence". Proof is for mathematics. You need to be aware of the differences between mathematics and science.

Coccolith fossils and DNA are sufficient evidence.

If you have alternative evidence to show us, then please do so.
You have been told the evidence and that is the unquestioned fossils show that they remained the same from their first known appearance until their last known appearance, and all the evos keep posting are ones with similarities which proves they have remained the same except for some minor things.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
You have been told the evidence and that is the unquestioned fossils show that they remained the same from their first known appearance until their last known appearance, and all the evos keep posting are ones with similarities which proves they have remained the same except for some minor things.
Fossils alone aren't the determinative piece of evidence that evolution is true, they only support evolution. It's the double nested hierarchy - from genetics and morphology - that make it undeniable. You can read up on it at the link, if you want to.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Fossils alone aren't the determinative piece of evidence that evolution is true, they only support evolution. It's the double nested hierarchy - from genetics and morphology - that make it undeniable. You can read up on it at the link, if you want to.
All that does is prove my point. They use cars and furniture as examples and there are slight differences in the cars and furniture proving slight differences do not serve as proof.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
All that does is prove my point. They use cars and furniture as examples and there are slight differences in the cars and furniture proving slight differences do not serve as proof.
You're missing the distinction between supporting evidence and determinative evidence. The latter is evidence that all by itself determines a claim. Supporting evidence is evidence that isn't necessary but is congruent with a claim. Fossils need only be supporting evidence.

Also, Rossum specifically said fossils and DNA are sufficient (determinative):
Coccolith fossils and DNA are sufficient evidence.
 
Top