Nygdan, Great Post! Thanks for your thoughtful response. Nice pretty pics!
Do you believe that I am unaware of the majority of these things youre mentioning, and youre trying to educate me?
Of course not. I know your background. Thats why in particular I want to explore the reasons why you have come to the conclusions you have. As you
have said you are not a creationist, you merely notice that there are 'anomolous phenomenon' and such, and that people often accept conclusions that
they haven't really thought out. Darwin himself had the initial ideas for his theory of natural selection years before he published them. He
thought them through in detail, he considered alternate lines of evidence, and correpsonded with numerous other naturalists. That, I think, is the
proper way to go about these things. Consider all possibilities and all arguements before arriving at a definite conclusion.
Well, at
least we can seem to agree at least in spirit regarding some issues. However, weve really barely touched on much of the available data that stands
in opposition to evolutionary theories, most of which are not in my particular area of expertise. My difficulties with evolutionary theory began with
my own area of expertise, and now via discussions with my colleagues in other disciplines of science has been further expanded to include these hobby
areas. Despite your claims to the contrary, I still feel you are out to prove that the theory is correct. I dont understand why people are so
opposed my saying its not a fact. Lets discuss the meaning of fact: NOUN:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
. There are very few principles of macroevolution that are actually based on real occurrences. As this thread has clearly demonstrated there are
series of observations that weve attempted to explain with the evolution postulate, however weve not observed real occurrences that would prove
evolution as a fact. What we have are a collection of facts, which in some contexts make sense, and in other contexts do not. My initial postulate
still stands: genuine evidence published in real scientific journal stands in stark opposition to a fact. Obviously, if evolution were a fact this
thread would not have gone into multiple pages, with anticipation of much area left to be covered, or uncovered. Certain aspects may be facts:
Microorganisms evolve antibiotic resistance, mutations are occasionally beneficial, fossils that appear to be transitions do exist. I will again
assert that a collection of factual information organized in coherent manner does NOT make a true story or even a story for that matter. Anyone whose
ever looked at that the stock pages can tell you that.
looking at PRIMARY sources for yourself. Evaluate each claim individually for yourself, which you claim you are perfectly capable of
doing, and make an informed decision WITHOUT the handicap of someone elses filter.
Yes but, admitedly, talkorigins provides an excellent introduction to the material, especially for 'laymen', and does close its papers with full
listings of sources and references that a person can check on their own. On this issue, I think we are in complete agreeance, the primary sources is
whats important. I don't think TO makes itself out to be a thing that can replace those sources or supersede them.
Again, at least we can agree in principle regarding the importance of primary references.
However, I see very little evidence of that type of research going on here in the ATS forum. IMO, it appears that many members in the threads that I
follow would maintain their original set of beliefs, and stop at nothing to uphold them, citing only those sources that are in favor of their
preferred theory.
What trees are found in strata of established different ages?
Trees at Joggins fossil cliffs, for example.
See, this is a perfect example. I could go out and try to find
"Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince
Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp."
But I doubt I would be very successful. My local library might be able to get a latter printing through and Interlibrary loan, but, why
bother?
At TO, Dawson's examination of these 'polystrat' trunks is quoted nicely, and the ultimate conclusion is that these trees, with their roots intact
in the very soil they grew in, have simply been buried in place. The thick material in which they are now fossilized is not made up of strata
seperated by millions of years, but merely one or two events. A true 'polystrate' fossil would by something similiar, but found to cross the
boundaries of entire geological epochs. This would mean that the conventional interpretation for those epochs is wrong, and, furthermore, that the
methods used might be entirely wrong. Now, perhaps there is something that TO is leaving out, perhaps there is, say, conventional geolgical
information that indicates these trees actually are polystrate, that is, cross multiple strata. But Dawson doesn't seem to make mention of
it]. bold and italics added by mattison0922
Please see my above rebuttal regarding primary references. It would seem that some of the areas Ive bolded would argue against your statements
alleging to understand the importance of reading primary refs. TO might be leaving something out, but youll probably never know.
Fortunately for me, I happen to work in an academic environment with an awesome library, I have many colleagues from many different disciplines who
have references of their own that I can investigate, and I think its worth it to track down primary information.
Also, the Joggins trees, and other fossilized trees, the remains of reptiles are found in them, indicating rapid in place burial.
I will further point out the irony that I feel exists in this statement in light of the original title of this thread. As Aeon pointed out this rapid
in place burial could have happened via large scale flooding events.
Interestingly enough Nygdan, what position are you in to judge to credibility of any particular scientist?
I am certainly capable of determining for myself whether or not someone is credible or not.
I will rephrase this particular question: Nygdan, perhaps you can list your particular set of experiences analyzing scientific data, evaluating
scientific data, critically examining scientific data, or writing scientific reports on any level above that of a 200 level college course. Perhaps,
you will also inform us as to the nature of your personal scientific research and what methods you personally have personally have any hands-on
familiarity with. In what fields were these particular experiences undertaken?
Ah i see. Fair enough. I have a BS in Biology and another one in Geology. I'm a member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and until this
year was a member of the Geological Society of America and the Society of American Naturalists. However, I haven't had any formal post university
training or conducted any formal primary research with specimins and what not.
Nygdan, my commendations on your educational background, its a great synergistic combination for someone with your particular set of beliefs.
I see nothing that indicates an inability to be able to asses the claims of a scientific paper,
It depends on the paper. I have no particular
set of qualifications that permit me to understand geology papers, certainly not my biochemistry/molecular bio background. I compensate for that by
being in academic community where I can walk two buildings away and have some explain procedures to me. I can further evaluate the merit of the study
with a discussion of the methods and conclusions with someone who does know. It is only in the face of overwhelming information and resources that I
have reached the conclusions I have.
the numerous other people who have worked with the 7 or so archaeopteryx specimens are infinitely more qaulified than me to judge the validity of
them.
Agreed.
Overwhelmingly they support the non fraud nature of it, and, again, the one or two papers I have seen on it being a fraud were claiming that the
feather impressions were at an 'implausible' angle and that they had also been formed by taking regular feathers and making impressions with them
onto the fossil. These claims are pretty weak, and they don't have anything to support them. Are you saying that archaeopteryx is a fraud then? Or
are you saying that a person can only make that assesment by examining the specimen directly?
I didnt say either of those things. The
considerable evidence I mentioned regarding the fraudulent nature of the evidence was concerning an x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum
fossil. This data showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the
coarser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this amorphous paste also differed from the crystalline rock in the fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany,
where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. (N. Wickramasinghe and F. Hoyle, Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird? Nature, Vol. 324, 18/25 December
1986, p. 622.) You will find this particular study allegedly debunked in talkorigins. I cant remember if it was in talkorigins or not, one of the
major debunkings of this evidence contends that the amorphous nature of the feathered material is an artifact explainable by preservatives that
they have put on the fossil. This is a great example of bad science. This researcher completely ignored the control samples: no preservatives found
on the control specimen? Control specimens are utilized for the purpose of eliminating these possibilities. Interestingly enough, the British Museum
has refused further testing. I think the other refutation is even more absurd.
If we must continue to demonstrate the inconclusive nature of archaeopteryx, I suppose we must. Lets discuss the furcula , or wishbone of
Archaeopteryx. The wishbone is a unique feature of birds. Interestingly enough, to my knowledge only the British Museum specimen has a visible
furcula. This furcula, strange among birds, being upside down, and the largest of any known bird, a point acknowledged by both Huxley and deBeer.
Larry D. Martin, The Relationship of Archaeopteryx to other Birds, The Beginnings of Birds: Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx
Conference of 1984 (Eichsttt, Germany: Jura Museum, 1985), p. 182.
Perhaps you are interested in the comments of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who stated that:
It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some
semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in
cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.( (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A Case of Fossil Forgery, p.
93.)
Is it a forgery or transition? Some researchers think its nothing more than a bird:
I will again refer to Feduccia who states that Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its
not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.
(Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):76465, 5 February, 1993.
Furthermore the skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This is indicative of the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at
least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most
evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.(Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:25012505, 2000.)
Also, analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern birds, three times the size of
that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual
input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying
birds. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. ( Alonso,
P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666669,
5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619620.)
What is the convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. A major difficulty with this is
the low density of bird carcasses coupled with the fact that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, presents a difficulty in that the
animal must lie on the seafloor, which is unusual for a dead bird.
Perhaps you are interested in some quotes from scientist more qualified than you or I to judge archaeopteryx and transitional forms in general. We can
start with Darwin and move along
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?
... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and
every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the
most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.
Darwin believed these gaps existed because of the imperfection of the geologic record. It was expected the gaps would be filled as fossil
exploration continued. Has it? Read on:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million
fossil species but the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such
as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed informationwhat appeared to be a
nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwins problem
has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most
reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin,
Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. FYI, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world.
Dr. David Raup, it former Dean, is more qualified than you or I summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil
record.
How about this one: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifes history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we
view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol.
5, May 1977, p. 14.
How about some more inconsistencies in the fossil record concerning plants: If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular
plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants
appeared.
The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissuethat is, before the
appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. (Lynn Margulis and Karlene
V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An illustrated guide to the Phyla of life on Earth, p. 250.)
How about this one: The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral
source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager
circumstantial evidence. Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
Enough? How about one more: ... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation
could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an
orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with
an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. E. J. H. Corner, Evolution, Contemporary Botanical
Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
Transitional fossils and evolution a fact Hardly.
Why would Ostrom agree with this?
John Ostrom studied some of the specimins of archaeopteryx directly, and has studied numerous other specimins of other
'dino-birds'.
I know who Ostrom is. My point was more in the big picture: What possible motivation would someone whose research funds depend on a particular
hypothesis have for refuting said hypothesis.
Unfortunately the same could be said for the one researcher who was making the fraudulent claim.
. Agreed
Also, there have been more people studying archaeopteryx than just john ostrom, and nothing in his work indicates that he is a fraud anyway.
If anything, if archaeopteryx was a fraud, there would be a motivation to reveal that fraud.
This is a huge assumption. What would be the
motivation, who would be motivated? Apparently, in some circles there is motivation, but places like say The British Museum have impeded this kind of
research. Why?
I rather like caudipteryx, microraptor, sinornithosaurus
Perhaps you should consider some quotes from one of your fellow evolutionists, Dodson, who stated: I hasten to add that none of the known small
theropods, including Deinonychus, Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor, Unenlagia, nor Sinosauropteryx, Protarcheaeopteryx, nor Caudipteryx is itself relevant
to the origin of birds( Dodson, P., Origin of birds: the final solution? American Zoologist 40:505506, 2000.)
I am tepid on endothermic dinosaurs; I am skeptical about the theropod ancestry of birds.( Dodson, P., Mesozoic feathers and fluff, American
Paleontologist 9(1):7, 2001).
Dodson's skepticism notwithstanding, most other theropod workers do understand that these specimins are infact revelant. The cladistic analyses
indicate that birds and theropods share a large number of synapomorphies, far to many to be mere coincidence. I don't think most would state that
they are on the direct line to birds, but they are certainly supportive of the theropod ancestry of birds.
Operative phrase supportive of. This is distinctly different than factual evidence of
Also, dodson certainly wouldn't state that these items are indicative of a non-occurance of evolution. Even fedduccia, martin, and chaterjee,
who at least were the main opponents of the 'birds are dinosaurs' idea, were still saying that birds evolved from even more different organisms.
This was not implicit in my statement. All evidence provided thus far is offered in support against the argument that evolution is a scientific fact.
Or how about this: I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the
origin of birds . Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method.
And yet, logically, they must exist.
And yet, there ceases to be ANY evidence. So it may only appear logical in the current context of the understandings of some. In reality, its
speculation.
Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only sister taxa.
Well, yes. Its not so much 'admited' like its a problem, its simply when the fossils are preserved.
Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested
by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential
characters for millions of years?
Why shouldn't it? The 'stem group', especially early on in dinosaurian histroy, would have the oppurtunity to undergo a rapid adaptive radiation,
what with the elimination of dinosuarian competition. They were obviously experimenting with all sorts of different forms. Why should sucessful
forms like dromeaosaurs and such change? They appear to have been perfectly adapated to their niche as smaller hunting dinosaurs, and wouldn't've
been ableto to encroach on the 'dino-bird' niche that was occupied by their closelty related taxons.
Please see above information re: inconsistencies and speculation, particularly with respect to the fossil record.
Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?
Please see: Dodson, P., Response by Peter Dodson, American Paleontologist 9(4):1314, 2001.
I'd have to say that the problem of bird origins is solved, certainly in broad strokes. The only two candidates are theropods or 'basal
archosaurs'. All the evidence found so far indicates that birds are closely related to theropods, more closely related to them than any of the basal
archosaurs. I don't think dodson these days is promoting any sort of 'basal archosaur' origin for birds. True, some of the details are left out.
Just when birds evolved from dinosaurs hasn't been worked out, and the relationships of some of the theropod groups haven't been worked out, or even
the timing of the origins of feathers hasn't been found out yet. But the shared derived characters between birds and dinosaurs exist in no other
groups, and no other groups are even likely candidates for the 'ancestral' group of birds.
Oh I see, youd have to say. With all due respect to your education, how are you more qualified than scientists whove been working in the field for
years and actually handled specimens and actually published peer reviewed articles to make this judgement?
Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University, analyzd fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryxs internal organs. His research
indicates their bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs seen in observed in modern birds (Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos
Breathed in Cold Blood, Science 278(5341):12291230, and in the same issue, see: Lung Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, pp.
12671270)
At the SVP meeting in denver, there were a few papers on the existence of avian like air sacks in dinosaurs. Not merely the usual pneumatization of
the backbones that is seen in many different types of dinosaurs, but the actual presence of diverticula within the coelom, a possible precursor of the
unidirectional avian lung system. Also, as far as the endo/ecto thermic issue, dinosaurs were almost certainly possesive of a rapid, non reptillian
metabolism. Whenever bone histology is studied, it almost allways indicates rapid growth and highly vascularized 'mammal like' tissues, not
permanently slow growing relatively avascular reptillian tissues. Dinosaurian growth rates, and of course, this is a rather large and diverse group,
tend to overlap the mammalian and bird ranges and seem to have more in common with them. The idea of ecto/endo thermic is probably not relevant to
these organisms. It makes sense when comparing foxes to lizards, but in the grande scope of evolutionary diversity, there is just to much variation
for these forms to be 'pigeon holed' into one static grouping or another. Also, a recent study of tyrannosaurian coprolites has shown that muscle
tissues were preserved, undigested, in the faeces. This indicates that the digestive system is rapid, not the slow system seen in say crocodiles that
have only a few meals and digest them completely.
Interesting. I was unaware of this. Please provide refs. as Id like to investigate.
Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science 278(5338):6668, 24
October 1997, with a perspective by Richard Hinchliffe, The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? on pp. 5967).
Ah, this, of course, was the best evidence against dinosaurian origins for birds, the non homology of the digits. However, even this has been seen,
in seperate studies, to not be quite the problem it once was. I think it was G. Wagner who provided evidence of a 'frame shift' in avian ontogeny,
one that results in the pattern now seen, and there was a study that just came out recently that also addressed this issue. I don't have access to
the references at the moment, I'll get some of them soon (not for a few days perhaps, but they are very interesting, I think you will find them
intriguing)
I would appreciate that.
I rather like the standard set given, things like australpithecus
This is not surprising. Perhaps you are unaware of the computer studies of australopithecines that have demonstrated that their bodily proportions
were not intermediate between man and living apes. For example: Charles E. Oxnard, The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds
for Doubt? Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389395. and Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones, The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May
1979, p. 273.
I was unaware of this reference, I'll have to check it out. However, even if body proportions are not intermediate, the specimin as a whole
clearly is intermeadiate.
Clear to who, clear to you? Not clear to every scientists in the field.
Perhaps you are unaware of evidence discovered by R.E.F. Leakey, in which he clearly stated: The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have
been close to the knuckle-walker condition, not unlike the extant African apes. Please see: Richard E. F. Leakey, Further Evidence of Lower
Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya, Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to beleive that the Leakey's think australpithecines aren't intermediates between man and 'lower' apes.
Didnt say that. I am merely suggesting that while it is suggested that these bone fragments are from a prehistoric human, there is considerable
evidence to suggest it was not much different than a chimp.
Perhaps you are unaware of another study involving their inner ear bones, which are used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with
those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but significant differences with those of humans.
Humans have a gait that is different than all of those groups tho, so why shouldn't their inner ears be arranged differently?
Im sorry, perhaps you could elaborate on said similarities between Lucies and humans.
Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans. Please see: Bruce Bower, Evolutions Youth Movement,
Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.
Not seeing how this is destructive to the hypothesis, of course, that might be a different story if I read the paper eh?
Further evidence suggesting that human like similarities between humans and Lucies are superficial. The animals are distinctly chimp like. Even if
they are like humans, how is this evidence of common ancestry? I am sure that you are aware of convergent evolution as Aeon felt it necessary to
point out to me.
Icthyostega
Evolutionist Carroll doesnt find any particular difficulty with Icthyostega and in a major vertebrate palaeontology
text described Ichthyostega as a fairly typical land animal (Carroll, R.L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York,
p. 164, 1988)
Again, Robert Carroll also doesn't have a problem with evolution above the species level either.
That was not the issue. I am merely
drawing attention the highly controversial and speculative nature of the evidence for evolution as a fact.
This is not a transitional fossil?
Nice Pics! Maybe, depends on whose perspective youre more inclined to agree with. Looks like an amphibious creature to me. How does this prove
evolution.
This is not an organism with fish like and amphibian like features?
As I said, it looks like an amphibian to me. Fish-like and amphibian-like features do not equal transitional fossil.
But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved
into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred
rapidly within this restricted time span.(Clack, J.A., Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington,
2002).
Ah, I had been considering purchasing that text on a few occasions. Looks like its interesting. Why is it considered implausible that these very
tetrapod like forms can evolve into actual tetrapods over 5 to 10 million years? Without any other land animals to compete with, they should be
spreading over a wide range very quickly.
Based on observable evidence, such as the rate of natural, unrepaired mutation in an organisms DNA for example.
More problems: Key morphological transitions, such as the purported change from paired fins to limbs with digits, remain undocumented by
fossils.
And yet, the transition from ray like fins to lobe like fins to primtive limbs that can't work out of water and then to limbs that can support the
organism.
I repeat the operative phrase Key morphological transitions remain undocumented by fossils. If and when they are found, itll be a step closer to
fact, but nonetheless distinctly not a fact.
None of these, however, have been dissenting opinions on the existence of 'macroevolution' itself. Fedduccia and the 'bird are not dinsoaurs'
group think that they evolved from a different group of reptiles.
This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention, even amongst those in the field as to the veracity of many claims
surrounding fossil evidence.
And even if the australpithecines have chimp like teeth, they are still well on their way to transiting to human like forms, How so
considering their gait, their teeth, and other evidence mentioned, what specifically is well on the way to transitioning?
not to mention homo erectus and the other transional 'ape-men'.
Perhaps youre interested in the comments of Brown, an Australian evolutionary paleoanthropologist re: Homo Erectus: Nearly every introductory and
advanced text written on human evolution in the last four decades lists thickened cranial-vault bone as one of the features distinguishing Homo
erectus from H. sapiens and other hominids. However, data has rarely been presented in support of this statement and it remains unclear whether the
distinction that is being drawn is relative, absolute, or restricted to a specific part of the neurocranium. Before concluding that relatively
thickened vault walls are an autopomorphic trait of H. erectus [references], it would seem reasonable to examine the vault thickness characteristics
of a range of hominid and hominoid primates. (Brown, P., cranial-vault thickness in Asian Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, in: Franzen, J.L., ed., 100
Years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo Erectus Problem, Courier Forschungs Institut Senckenberg 171, pp. 3345, 1994.) Brown contrasted the cranial-vault
dimensions of four modern Homo sapiens populations amongst themselves, and against samples of Asian Homo erectus and Chinese archaic Homo sapiens.
The four Homo sapiens populations evaluated were modern south Chinese, Romano-British, aboriginal Australians (both living and recently-dead), and the
remains of Australian aborigines that had lived, according to the conventional time-scale, from about 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. The lattermost
samples included the famous Kow Swamp remains, which had already been known for some time to possess considerable similarities to Homo erectus. The
measured means of cranial-vault thickness of the modern and recently dead Europeans, and Homo erectus, were found to be significantly different at
five of the seven anatomical points mentioned above. The same held for modern south Chinese when compared with Homo erectus. Only the prebregmatic
eminence and occipital torus were comparable between Homo erectus and, respectively, Europeans and South Chinese. By contrast, the so-called archaic
Homo sapiens did not differ from Homo erectus at any of the six anatomical points (data on the prebregmatic eminence of archaic Homo sapiens had been
unavailable)
Data from modern and ancient native Australians provided the most interesting results. Remains of Australian aborigines from the conventionally-dated
time period of 10,00030,000 years ago (a mere flicker on the evolutionary time scale, even by the standards of human evolution itself) were found to
differ in only one of the seven anatomical points of the skull (in terms of cranial-vault thickness) from their counterparts in Homo erectus. This was
in the parietal eminence, which was much thinner in the not-so-ancient aborigines than in Homo erectus. Thus, the distinctiveness of the Kow Swamp
remains stands re-affirmed. Even more surprisingly, presently living Australian aborigines differed from Homo erectus in only four of the seven
anatomical points on the skull. These were in the following: lambda, parietal eminence, asterion, and occipital torus.
Of course, cranial-vault thickness is not the only anatomical feature that is supposed to distinguish Homo erectus from Homo sapiens. An older study
by MacIntosh and Larnach attempted to enumerate the differences between Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens. A typological approach was taken, with
specimens of Java Man, Peking Man, and East African Man taken as exemplifying the real Homo erectus. Seventeen allegedly distinctive traits of Homo
erectus were selected. Members of modern human groups were scored as sharing a trait with Homo erectus only when a given individual shared a
cranio-anatomical trait to the same extent as did the aforementioned type specimens of Homo erectus. This eliminated borderline cases. At least 1%
of a given modern population group had to possess a given trait of Homo erectus in order to be considered as sharing the trait with Homo erectus. Of
course, most Homo erectus traits, when they occurred, did so at frequencies much greater than 1% of a given extant human population.
The results of this analysis are as follows: Most members of the human race were found to share only 45 of the 17 traits of Homo erectus, as defined
above. However, this must be questioned since the sample sizes are very small (only 721 individuals for each group). The modern New Guineans had a
much larger sample (95 individuals), and they were found to share 8 of the 17 presumably diagnostic traits. The modern Australian aborigines had the
largest sample (202 individuals), and were found to share an astonishing 14 of the 17 Homo erectus traits.
The most recent evidence indicates that only a handful of features distinguish the presumed two species of man, and even these are of dubious
validity. In addition, it is still recognized that most, if not all, of these few presumably diagnostic features are present in Homo sapiens, albeit
infrequently. (MacIntosh, N.W.G. and Larnach, S.L., The persistence of Homo erectus traits in Australian aboriginal crania, Archaeology and Physical
Anthropology in Oceania 7(1):17, 1972.
Wolpoff, M.H. and three others, The case for sinking Homo erectus: 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough! in: Franzen, J. L. ed., 100 Years of
Pithecanthropus: The Homo Erectus Problem, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 171, p.351, 1994.
They aren't merely chimps. Their brain cases are increasing, their limbs are being modified, their vertebrae are changing their
articulations with their heads.
Nygdan, would love to discuss with you. Maybe we should start with Piltdown man, or possibly Peking man, how about New Guinea Man?
I suppose it comes down to what is the definition of a fact. In my mind, a theory with data that stands in such stark opposition to other
available is hardly a fact.
Again, none of these dissenting opinions have been in oppostion to evolution as a fact. organisms change thru time. There is nothign that prevents
them from crossing the imaginary 'kind' barrier.
Except for the above noted lack of any evidence showing a crossing of this barrier
Furthermore Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man
began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Recks skeleton, and many others. Other remains, such as the
Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszllos fossil, present similar problems
The differences between humans and chimps are in some ways slight. Increased brain size, erect stance, more mobile fingers. They'd all fall under
the term 'microevolution' if microevolution is 'below kinds'.
Diagreed. A chimp is a chimp, a human is human. There is no evidence of microevolution causing one organism to change into another. To my knowledge,
speciation, is hardly ever if at all referred to as microevolution.
Even the bird to dinosaur transition almost starts to fall 'below the level of kinds' of animals and into the 'microevolutionary' change
level.
BS. Dinosaur to bird transitions have never been classified as microevolution. Please point out a reference where this is referred to this way.
If 'macroevolution' wasn't occuring, then one wouldn't be finding these organisms with characters of two different groups.
Disagreed. If macroevolution is occuring we would find these transitional organisms.
Do I misunderstand you here?
And while not every type of transitional that probably had to have occured has been found, and, undoubtedly, not every kind has even been
preserved, that hardly means that these ones that do exist aren't telling everyone anything.
Didnt say there werent telling anyone
anything, they are obviously telling you and I completely different things.
I agree that everything is not known. However, the evolution obviously occurs.
Microevolution obviously occurs.
There are transitional fossils. Not every fossil that one would like to have is there, but there are organisms that can't be neatly fit into
one kind of creature or another.
This admitted controversy, and you can still claim it as a fact? Even in light of the scientists who would argue otherwise? (Please see above)
The existence of feathered birdlike dinosaurs and fish like limbed animals attests to this. The existence of very ape like organisms walking
around the african savana, showing increasing brain capacities over time and more and more human like stances and gaits and technology shows that man
did indeed evolve from more primitive organisms.
We have systematically demonstrated each of these to be controversial, and not without their opponents. How is this a fact?
And the overall structure of the fossil record also shows that organisms have been segregated into seperate fauna in time. One doesn't find
Dinsoaurs in permian beds. One doesn't find chimps and dinosuars co-existing.
Need I cite numerous inconsistencies in the fossil record that make no sense in the context of evolution in addition to those already posted? Please
refer to the section above, particularly with respect to plant fossils.
Its as solidly supported as any scienfitic theory.
Disagreed. Gravity is a solidly supported scientific theory, DNA--> RNA--> Protein is a solidly supported scientific theory. Evolution, by its very
nature will never be proven.
Nygdan, thanks again for your efforts.
I would have thought that learning what other people believe, would be a great asset when dealing and
communicating with these people? Unless you live a really sheltered life, I am sure you have mixed with people outside the evolution train of
thought. 
