(second part)
ON "IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEDUCTION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE THAT LIVING FOSSIL NOW DO NOT LIVE. " This observation must be qualified first, as many species are still living from the remote past. Are those has been called "living fossils", more numerous than we think, from the esquizofita Kakabekia [i] the famous Nautilus, passing shark, Ginkgo, the horsetails, the frog or the ant. [ii] The fact that these organisms continue to live on earth and appear in the fossil record of ancient times, we can deduce two things: that there are extinct and have not evolved. This group of "living fossils" is growing every day with increasing the fossil record and natural variability is accepted morphological species. From this group of organisms, even considering only those in which only morphology has changed, it is not possible to deduce the evolution of species, they can only deduce the stability of Species. The other species that have lived on earth, it's not present existence, may be due to one or a combination of several of these possibilities: 1. Just has existed throughout the history of the earth many living species that are extinct. The number of extinct species is considerable, it is meant as an argument against this tautological invention called adaptation. [iii] In recent centuries, humanity has witnessed the extinction of numerous species, and today we have huge lists of flora and fauna in danger of extinction, and not even one of these cases, some well-documented, we have observed that some individuals of this species had different provably descended to him, before dying. As much as I try, I can not understand what to do scientifically speaking, that a species is extinct, the species that originate from each other by evolution. In this first case, say that the evolution of species is the only deduction is completely free. 
2. There are many species still living in ancient times but now some strains are more common than those that have prevailed in other geological eras. Specific criteria in paleontology is very delicate, if not useless, if anything, should be used with caution. In paleontology, you can only recognize shapes, and leaving aside the few remaining in which they appear fossilized remains or marks of the soft parts of organisms, the fossil record can be grouped into three types: the remains or shells or molds external structures, internal skeletal remains, and traces or signs of life. In the first type, seashells or external structures, the morphological changes seen in the consistent and continuous geological series can be explained well by: a) - lateral overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, in situations of transgression or regression. And b) minimum chemical changes in the environment, as tested and Chabry Pouchet, D'Arcy Thompson and others. [iv] Among other things, demonstrated that foraminifera of a species, reacting to minor changes in the alkalinity of the medium, building shells "own" other species of foraminifera. In the case of skeletal remains of vertebrates, we are in a very similar situation, to say that the fossil remains of a lizard (for example), belonged to an individual of a different species to species of lizards living in Currently, it is essential first serious study with extensive sampling of the morphological variability each of the parts of the skeletons of dinosaurs living species, which has not been done. And secondly, you can not define a species with a small fragment of a skeleton, it is more, when you look at the findings of remains of vertebrates, especially dinosaurs, that only lived on earth a specimen of each species, it repeatedly, each finding is assigned to a new species, different from the current and unlike any fossils found so far. We must put a lot of evolutionary unbiased order in vertebrate paleontology, and even have to start seriously assessing the critical importance of environmental physicochemical conditions and other epigenetic factors in phenotypic expression of a dominant variety, or a size in living in a given geological period. So until they determine with relative certainty the ability of morphological variability of a species, this second point, one can not obtain any evidence for evolution of species. 
3. The ancient species have disappeared from the fossil record because they have evolved to more modern species. This is the opportunity that is accepted by supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, but if this is what happened in Earth's history, paleontology observe something other than what is in strata. Let's see: a) All evolutionists, regardless of the evolutionary mechanism that advocate, understand that it is one or a small number of individuals who differ on the specific model and gives rise to a new species. If this is what has happened, the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms, rather, would be difficult to follow a specific form in time. This is not so, the forms appear stable for long geological time (with due caution in estimating geological time). b) As shown in the fossil record is a stable and suddenly from one stratum to the next, it disappears like that and there is a new, not always similar to previous the evolutionary idea, it should add to the possibility that some individuals suddenly acquire a new form, the need for instant termination of all individuals who have maintained the previous form. And this is not that have happened once, but it is the mechanism in each new variation. c) is a research question which of Eldredge and Gould on the series of Trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, [v] do not include analytical references the saline composition of sediments and sedimentary structures smallest, since the result of their research is more concerned with the overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, which play a continuous synchronized "monsters viable" and simultaneous extinction. So this third section also provides no evidence that species have evolved from other species, this third point is an unsupported idea paleontology.
2. There are many species still living in ancient times but now some strains are more common than those that have prevailed in other geological eras. Specific criteria in paleontology is very delicate, if not useless, if anything, should be used with caution. In paleontology, you can only recognize shapes, and leaving aside the few remaining in which they appear fossilized remains or marks of the soft parts of organisms, the fossil record can be grouped into three types: the remains or shells or molds external structures, internal skeletal remains, and traces or signs of life. In the first type, seashells or external structures, the morphological changes seen in the consistent and continuous geological series can be explained well by: a) - lateral overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, in situations of transgression or regression. And b) minimum chemical changes in the environment, as tested and Chabry Pouchet, D'Arcy Thompson and others. [iv] Among other things, demonstrated that foraminifera of a species, reacting to minor changes in the alkalinity of the medium, building shells "own" other species of foraminifera. In the case of skeletal remains of vertebrates, we are in a very similar situation, to say that the fossil remains of a lizard (for example), belonged to an individual of a different species to species of lizards living in Currently, it is essential first serious study with extensive sampling of the morphological variability each of the parts of the skeletons of dinosaurs living species, which has not been done. And secondly, you can not define a species with a small fragment of a skeleton, it is more, when you look at the findings of remains of vertebrates, especially dinosaurs, that only lived on earth a specimen of each species, it repeatedly, each finding is assigned to a new species, different from the current and unlike any fossils found so far. We must put a lot of evolutionary unbiased order in vertebrate paleontology, and even have to start seriously assessing the critical importance of environmental physicochemical conditions and other epigenetic factors in phenotypic expression of a dominant variety, or a size in living in a given geological period. So until they determine with relative certainty the ability of morphological variability of a species, this second point, one can not obtain any evidence for evolution of species. 3. The ancient species have disappeared from the fossil record because they have evolved to more modern species. This is the opportunity that is accepted by supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, but if this is what happened in Earth's history, paleontology observe something other than what is in strata. Let's see: a) All evolutionists, regardless of the evolutionary mechanism that advocate, understand that it is one or a small number of individuals who differ on the specific model and gives rise to a new species. If this is what has happened, the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms, rather, would be difficult to follow a specific form in time. This is not so, the forms appear stable for long geological time (with due caution in estimating geological time). b) As shown in the fossil record is a stable and suddenly from one stratum to the next, it disappears like that and there is a new, not always similar to previous the evolutionary idea, it should add to the possibility that some individuals suddenly acquire a new form, the need for instant termination of all individuals who have maintained the previous form. And this is not that have happened once, but it is the mechanism in each new variation. c) is a research question which of Eldredge and Gould on the series of Trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, [v] do not include analytical references the saline composition of sediments and sedimentary structures smallest, since the result of their research is more concerned with the overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, which play a continuous synchronized "monsters viable" and simultaneous extinction. So this third section also provides no evidence that species have evolved from other species, this third point is an unsupported idea paleontology. (to be continued soon)
[i] Siegel, SM and Guimarro, C, "On the culture of a microorganism similar to the Precambrian microfóssile Kabekia umbelata, NH rich in atmosphere" Proc. Scad Nat. Sc, 55, 349-353, 1967. [ii] To see the best list of these species have not changed over geologic time, in P. Grasse - "The evolution of the living" Edit. Blume 1977 p. 86 to 110.
[iii] The very idea of \u200b\u200badaptation implies that an organization could not do or suffer something, suddenly, as something new, get it or suffering it without being destroyed. Is to show that this has ever happened in nature. And in any case, it is a fallacy, because all organisms are well adapted, as they are alive, and the only possible way to scientifically measure adaptation, is a quantitative estimate of those killed and those who survive, and for this, there are words and concepts like life and death, clear enough to avoid having to invent new ones that mean lo mismo.
[iv] Tompson, D'Arcy. "Sobre el crecimiento y la forma" Edit, JT Bonner - Cambridge 2003 - p.138, p. 193 y 194th Pouchel y Chabry Socc. Biol Paris 9 - 1-1989 - Acad. Sci. París 108-1889: 196 - 198 Brady HB Rep. Chall Foraminifera p. 1884 203 pl XIII. Bastch "shells of the lake andes" af 1791 p.4 pl VI fig 15th Dreyer "Peneroplis, a study on the morphology and biological species to ask" Leipzig, 1898. Bucket and Fickert "Aartbilding and affinity with the foraminifera" tubbing zool work 3-1899 - 35
[v] Eldredge, N, and Gould, SJ "ed punctuate equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism" Models Paloebiology Cooper & Co 1973.
Semogil April 14, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment