Originally posted by mattison0922
Nice pretty pics!
Me like drawings
Despite your claims to the contrary, I still feel you are out to prove that the theory is correct.
Perhaps I tend to use a method that is adversarial, but I find its an effective way to look at the issues.
There are very few principles of macroevolution that are actually based on real occurrences.
This importantly hinges on the usage of 'macroevolution'. I usually look at microevolution as 'merely' the change in alleles of a population over
a humanly observable or short period of time. Or, for a 'zoological' example, when I hear microevolution I'll take it to mean the popularized
example of bird beaks evolving in response to drought/non-drought conditions on some galapagos islands. When I hear 'macroevolution' I tend to
think of evolution at or above the level of species, iow, speciation. Speciatio, however, has been observed. The other thing I think of when I hear
macro-evolution is the long term, geological time, patterns in widescale paleontological history. Faunal turnover, punctuated equilibrium, and the
like. Now, I agree, those
particular patterns are only observable in the fossil record, and thus one can't witness them happening on a human
timescale. But this is practicially a definitional limitation in so far as one is requirign that 'macroevolution' be limited to these non-directly
observable 'deep time' scale occurances. In general, however, I try -not- to use the terms micro and macro evolution. The mechanisms proposed are
the same. No one is saying that something different happens on the long term. Its allways populational genetics and shifting alleles.
As this thread has clearly demonstrated there are series of observations that we’ve attempted to explain with the evolution postulate, however we’ve
not observed ‘real occurrences’ that would ‘prove’ evolution as a fact.
However thats because it is not disputed that what can be observed has been.
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 , 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 I’ve bolded would argue against your statements
alleging to understand the importance of reading primary refs. TO might be leaving something out, but you’ll probably never know.
I have seen enough of the people at TO to know that they aren't covering up information and lying. When something appears questionable I check it
out. Do you think that there is some sort of genuine controversy as to how the joggins petrified tree strata were laid out? I don't think that its
particularly reasonable to assume that there is allways something else out there that contradicts every publication. This reference is from over a
hundred years ago, if there was controvery over it then I would probably have come across it on the other sites that address this issue. Its possible
that no one is doing proper research on this stuff, but, again, I find that extremely unlikley, and, seeing what I've seen of the creationist
arguements on this sort of thing (not saying you are one, just to be clear), I know pretty well that they'd be all over it if there were actual
papers that demonstrated that these trees were crossing established strata, rather than sitting in thick sediments. And as far as Dawson himself
making mention of it, again I think its reasonably low risk to say that because he's saying its one large strata and because the people researching
it haven't noted anything about the trees crossing actual multiple strata, that they infact aren't. I mean, I could travel to joggins myself when
it comes down to it, but what for? Nothing anywhere suggests that there is reason to.
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.
It probably did happen via a rapid flooding event, with a scale as large as the formation invovled. That has nothing to do with 'The Flood' tho.
One excepts to find evidence of floods, since floods are thought to have occured.
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.
I find that resources like this web forum and other discussion groups to be helpful in a similar manner. Obviously, there're lots of people out
there who make themselves appear more qualified and experienced than they are, so its certainly not as good as face to face contact, but it has its
[xrays and] This researcher completely ignored the control samples: no preservatives found on the control specimen?
well lets look at some of what TO has to say on the subject.
[size=-3]this is Fig % from Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M. (1988) Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. The
British Journal of Photography, 135: 14-17. Its is a ""X-ray luminescence results from amorphous body shown in Fig. 4f."
The elements showing up are congruent apparently with the silcone rubber and the chlorine that is used to fix it
Also, Wichramasinghe et al, and I just have to comment on this because it irks me, keeps refering to the specimin as compsognathus
, but, even
if the feathers are fake, its still not that a member of that genus. its very similar, and of course one specimin famously had been misidentified as
, but that was more sloppyness than anything.
Interestingly enough, to my knowledge only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula.
Why is this interesting? The furcula doesn't allways ossify and therefore might rot rather than preserve.
. 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
Hoyle and Wickrammsinghe seem to be generally unaware of the depositional mode and way in which the specimin was split into a slab and counter slab in
the first place, so I am not going to overturn all the other evidence because of this vague issue of a furcula indentation.
I will again refer to Feduccia who states that “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s
not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.”
Yes, Fedduccia is the main modern opponent of the B.A.D hypothesis. But agian I must re-iterate, Feduccia isn't saying that birds didn't evolve, he
is saying that they didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but rather from more primitive arboreal archosaurs. Besides which, the claim that archaeopteryx
is just a bird is entirely unbeleiveable. Yes it has a perching foot with a reversed hallux, but no it does not have a hand fused into one bone, not
it does not have a beak, no it does not have a pygostyle and no it does not have a fused synsacrum. Its extremely unbirdlike, esecially considering
that feathers and furculae are no longer restricted to the birds. The only 'strictly' bird like features that it has (besides things like a
probable lack of a post orbital bar and such) is the reversed hallux.
the skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This is indicative of the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac,
Numerous sauropods have pneumatized vertebrae, it is not a feature unique to birds. Majunolathus, a theropod from madagascar, also has extensive
pneumatization. A paper presented at this years SVP indicated that the probably also had abdominal air sacs.
Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of
IOW transitional in size. Also, the brain in archaeopteryx is "Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain
and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the
mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between
dinosaurs and birds "
large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying[...] the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions
were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required
for coordinating flight.
But none of this means that archaeopteryx is not a transitional, and it speaks against the feathers being fake. If archaeopteryx did fly, then it
should have adaptations for flight, such as those above and others.
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.
And therefore over the millions of years that these populations of animals occupied the coasts of this area, only 7 or so have been preseved at all
and fewer have been preserved belly up.
“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
See, the problem with Darwin on this matter is that paleontology was in its infancy when he was around and considering these things. Archaeopteryx
itself hadn't been discovered, and of course neither had any of the dinobirds. Darwin wasn't really qualified to speak about the occurance of
transitionals in the fossil record, since the fossil record was largely unknown in his day. More importantly, Darwin asked that question
rhetorically, and then moved on to answer it. he noted that the fossil record isn't going to be able to preserve everything, and in fact will miss
out on a lot of earth biological history.
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”
It was the most serious object, in the late 1800s. Today it is not.
record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s
time. By this I mean that [...]what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more
complex and much less gradualistic.
All well and good and most people agree with Raup. Instead of simple gradual progressive transition from one form to the next, there is a large
variety of forms, all adapting to their different environments and having their own phylogenetic history. This is not the same as saying
macroevolution doesn't happen, rather, its an argument against clear trendy progression.
So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years
Darwin's issue of the existence of transitional forms is different than what raup is talking about. Raup isn't arguing that there aren't organisms
with the requisite features. He is arguing against phyletic gradualism as the tempo of evolution.
. Dr. David Raup, it former Dean, is more qualified than you or I summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the
I agree completely, he certainly is, and he seems to be saying that simple transitions from 'little horseliek animal to large horses' don't exist.
Similarly, simple progressions from dinosaurs to archaeopteryx to birds don't exist, because the phylogenetic
study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.
Notice, he is talking about the pace of evolution, not the occurance of it. And gould is not arguing that there aren't transitionals, even he in
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
plainly admits that there are observed fossil examples of phyletic gradualism. However he is practically
famous for arguing the the primary mode of speciation in the fossil record is punctuationism, where in the lack of lots of transitionals is infact an
artifact of the fossil record and the 'peripatetic' mechanism of speciation, not a lack of speciation in the first place.
places like say The British Museum have impeded this kind of research. Why?
Why should the BM grant more access to archaeopteryx? Wickramasingh's analysis was teribly flawed and the specimins are clearly not frauds. Also,
the BM doesn't control all the specimins. Are you suggesting that the most rational answer is that they know its a fraud and are covering it up?
Operative phrase “supportive of.” This is distinctly different than “factual evidence of”
They are supportive of birds comming from dinosaurs, yes, thats a hypothesis and it will allways remain one. They are factual evidence that evolution
occurs, irregardless if it was from dinosaurs to birds.
All evidence provided thus far is offered in support against the argument that evolution is a scientific fact.
How is is supportive of macroevolution not occuring? They are saying that the evidence supports them evolving from basal archosaurs.
And yet, there ceases to be ANY evidence.
The ghost lineages imply that these organisms are older and more diverse than teh record indicated. You previously cited triassic bird like prints
as indicative of the prior existence of birds. So how can you say that there is no evidence?
So it may only appear logical in the current context of the understandings of some. In reality, it’s speculation.
Sure, its speculation that the phylogeny has some particular shape or another, but not speculation that macroevolution occurs at all.
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.
Oh I see, “you’d have to say.” With all due respect to your education, how are you more qualified than scientists who’ve been working in the
field for years and actually handled specimens and actually published peer reviewed articles to make this judgement?
Ok fine, what makes dodson more qualified than Holtz, Sereno, Horner, Padian and the majority of theropod workers and archosaur paleontologists who
agree that birds have evolved from theropod dinosaurs? I've seen the issues that people have brought up wrt this issue, and the only mildly decent
arguement that anyone has ever made is fedduccias arguement that there is rampant convergence between dinosaurs and birds. This is the only
scientific explanation for the data. However, its completely implausible, to have feathers evolving twice or multiple times and all the over
synapomorphies that his ideas require merely be coincidental. Convergence doesn't operate by making organisms under different pressure develop
similar structures. It makes reptiles, sharks, and mammals look generally similiar when they are all put in the water and made to do very similiar
things (ie sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins) but 'full' birds and dinosaurs are under entirely different selective pressures. Just becuase there
are still issues on the subject that are unclarified doesn't mean that its unsolved. Birds clearly did not evolve from basal archosaurs. There are
no characteristics shared between them to the exlusion of other archosaurs (dinosaurs included). There are extremely few bird characteristics that
are not in theropod dinosaurs. And if dodson and fedduccia were correct, how does that count as support for the proposition that macroevolution
Interesting. I was unaware of this. Please provide refs. as I’d like to investigate.
Clear to who, clear to you? Not clear to every scientists in the field.
its a quasi walking ape showing a trend torwards increasing brain size and human like facial and dental features. What else could a transitional
between a man and a chimp look like?
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.
A transitional, by definition, is going to have lots of features that are from the 'primitive' group, and features that are from the 'advanced'
I’m sorry, perhaps you could elaborate on said [gait] similarities between ‘Lucies’ and humans.
is a recent
article on something like the subject.
But this and others, like (W. Jungers Nature 297)do seem to confirm that australopithecines were more arboreal than i realized. However, they are
not saying that it wasn't also capable of a bipedal gait, and the bones involved in their gait do appear to be transitional between chimp and man
Also, quoting Jungers "A. afarensis had already attained forelimb proportions similar to those of modern humans but possessed hindlimbs that were
relatively much shorter".
I don't have acess to the original article, but
is a 'Nature
News' brief on R. Crompton, Journal of Human Evolution 35 1998, a study that analyzed the biomechanics of the lucy skeleton and compared erect stance
and bent knee stance. They rule out chimp like walking altogether, and also conclude that the bent knee walk was 'much less mechanically effective,
[with] heat generation so much greater, that an erect carriage was favoured'.
one can find an article that examines
the wrists of Aust. and find "the wrists [...] are like those of modern humans in that they lack the putative knuckle-walking characteristics "
Or there is Latimer, B. & Lovejoy, C. O. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78 1989 " Calcaneal morphology is unequivocal in its partitioning of quadrupedal
pongids and bipedal
is ASU's Institute of Human Origns take on it
"As in a modern human's skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique
to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces) which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during
locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large, and are thus
adapted to handling the added weight which results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality.
The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The
talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae
show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance. "
Susman, R. L., Stern, J. T. & Jungers, W. L. Folia Primatol. 43 1984 probably have it best by stating "Numerous studies of the locomotor skeleton of
the Hadar hominids have revealed traits indicative of both arboreal climbing/suspension and terrestrial bipedalism.These earliest known hominids must
have devoted part of their activities to feeding, sleeping and/or predator avoidance in trees, while also spending time on the ground where they moved
. The australpithecines aren't acting like pure chimps, and aren't acting purely like humans. They're occupying a transitional form,
with chimp like characteristics and apre like characteristics.
I am sure that you are aware of ‘convergent evolution’ as Aeon felt it necessary to point out to me.
Also, on convergent evolution, if it were to occur, it'd be an example of macroevolution. So you can't maintain that australpithecines are animals
that have converged on the human type, and still say macroevolution doesn't occur. Unless you would say that they were all instantaneously created
and the similiarity isn't due to convergence or any other evolutionary phenomenon.
Looks like an amphibious creature to me. How does this ‘prove’ evolution.
How else do you explain the conserved 'deep homology' between primitive amphibians, mice, lungfish, reptiles, and these fossil forms with half limbs
and limb-fins? The only acceptable explanation is that these structures are homologous, that they are similiar because they are an inherited trait
handed down to them from more primitive types, which, shown here, -are- present in the fossil record.
As I said, it looks like an amphibian to me. Fish-like and amphibian-like features do not equal transitional fossil.
Then what would you consider a transitional, if not an animal with feature intermeadiate between two groups? What more could a transitional
tetrapod-fish limb look like other than a limb with numerous solid boney elements in similiar positions and in enough numbers to account for all
'later' variations on limb bones and having the fin rays of actual fish? What else but macroevolution could account for amphibians under specific
and unique 'microevolutionary' pressures having the same skeletal make up as reptiles under entirely different 'microevolutionary' pressures?
What explains find only weak limbed organisms whose obviously primitive limbs can't even support their own body out of water in one era and only find
stronger more adapated to terrestrial lifestyles in another?
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,
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.
But that doesn't answer the question of how much variation there is in this population of pre-tetrapods. What evidence does one have of mutation
rates in pre-tetrapods anyway? And how much of that evidence is based on small peripheral populations, seperate from the large central populations,
where speciation is thought to occur? We're talking 5 to 10 million
years here. And to accomplish what? The loss of rays in the limbs? A
seperation of the pectoral girdle from the skull? Stronger ossifications of cartilagenous elements? 5-10 million years to go from tetrapod like
animals to basal tetrapods?
More problems: Key morphological transitions, such as the purported change from paired fins to limbs with digits, remain undocumented by
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
I repeat the operative phrase “Key morphological transitions… remain undocumented by fossils.” If and when they are found, it’ll be a step closer to
‘fact,’ but nonetheless distinctly not a ‘fact.’
What key transitions are remaining to be found if one has fish limbs, boney lobed fins, fins with bones and rays, fins without rays, very weak limbs,
weak limbs, and strong limbs? What transitional in the bird sequence remian if one has very simple protofeathers, symetric non-flight feathers,
symmetric flight feathers, increasing arm to hind limb ratios, decreasing tail lenght, increasing pneumatiztion of the skeleton, loss of cranial
bones, bipedalis, tridactly, increasing ossification of the clavicles and furculae and all the rest? And on humans and chimps, one has very chimp like
animals showing human dental structures
This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention,
Fedduccia and Larry Witmer are not 'considerable dissention'. While Dodson sensibly states that these organisms probably aren't part of some
'progressive' sequence, he isn't presenting anything that contradicts or refutes the large number of shared derived characters between these
animals, and he isn't, I beleie, making the bizzare case that there has been rampant convergence between animals under entirely different conditions.
There isn't considerable dissent, there is considerable consensus on the topic.
not to mention homo erectus and the other transional 'ape-men'.
Perhaps you’re 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.
is Dr. Brown's response to the Kow swamp material being erectus
, he does
not beleive that they are classifiable as erectus nor that erectus is just some far end of variation within sapiens. I don't doubt that there are
features of erectus in modern man, because modern man evolved from erectus.
Thus, the distinctiveness of the Kow Swamp remains stands re-affirmed.
Again, Dr. Brown does not beleive that the Kow Swamp specmins are erectus. They share some feature, but that doesn't make them members of erectus.
The modern Australian aborigines had the largest sample (202 individuals), and were found to share an astonishing 14 of the 17 Homo erectus
And did these reseachers find conclude that homo erecuts and homo sapiens should be synonomized or not? Were they unable to distinguish group samples
into the erectus type and the sapiens type or no?
The most recent evidence indicates that only a handful of features distinguish the presumed two species of man, and even these are of dubious
I don't see how an apomorphic definition is required. Typoligical thinking is generally rejected in the biological sciences these day. The specimin
as a whole is what is looked at, along with other factors. Are macintosh and Larnach saying that there are persistent erectus characters in some
populations of humans or that all specmins of erectus are infact sapiens?
Nygdan, would love to discuss with you. Maybe we should start with Piltdown man, or possibly Peking man, how about New Guinea Man?
Why would one talk about piltdown man, since its a known fraud?
Except for the above noted lack of any evidence showing a crossing of this barrier
I don't think that there is such any such thing as a kind barrier in the first place. I wouldn't personally include erectus and sapiens in a
different kind, but they are different species. Typological 'kinds', 'Baramins' as the creationist camp calls them, are non existent, they are
figments of the imagination. One recognizes say a 'bird' kind, because all living representatives of this particular clade are advanced crown
group birds. If the feathered dinobirds and the rest of the dinosuars were still around, one wouldn't be able to class them into 'bird' and 'not
bird' groups. Based on what? Feathers? Flight? Presence of a bony tail? What exactly? The point is that there is no kind barrier in the first
place, so how could anything prevent dinosaurs from becomming birds or chimps becomming men to start off with? Given that there is no reason to
think that they can't, given in fact that populations of organisms are variable and undergo adaptation and speciation, and then given the range of
fossil evidence and the distribution of characteristics, what other plausible conclusion can one reach? Evolution, macro, micro, it clearly
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,
"this was a modern skull discovered in 1866 in California in Pliocene deposits (2 to 5 million years old). A few scientists did believe it genuine,
but it was always widely considered to be a hoax. Personal testimonies and geological evidence indicate that it is probably a modern Indian found in
nearby limestone caves, and that it was planted as a practical joke by miners. Tests have shown it to be recent, probably less than 1000 years old.
(Dexter 1986; Taylor et al. 1992; Conrad 1982) "
the Castenedolo skeletons
" According to Boule, an official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with salt, except
the human ones. This implies that they are from relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed this.
Unfamiliar with this
Swanscombe skull,[...] Vertesszöllos fossil
"Swanscombe Man: two cranium fragments discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in England, and a third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit
with the earlier ones. The bones are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and modern features, and an estimated brain size of 1325 cc. They are
probably from an archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible with their estimated age of 200,000 to 300,000 years (Day 1986).
Vertesszollos Man: a few tooth fragments and part of an adult cranium found in Hungary. The cranial fragment is very thick and broad, with a mixture
of modern and primitive features. This is also considered to be probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age, which has variously been
estimated to be from 160,000 to over 350,000 years. (Day 1986) "
If macroevolution weren't occuring and all the sorts of animals in existence now once co existed, there wouldn't be any ability to sort them into
different fauna over different times in different strata. The overwhelming majority of the fossil record shows this phenomenon of faunal turnover and
sorting. Some archaic looking material in some slightly younger than expected strata simply is not convincing. Why do you find them convincing?
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.
So if speciation is macroevolution then even macroevolution has been observed.
I mean, is it or isn't it macroevolution? Thats the problem. If macroevolution is speciation, then what process prevents drastic changes in
speciation? If populations can adapt, then what is preventing 'macroevolution'?
Even the bird to dinosaur transition almost starts to fall 'below the level of kinds' of animals and into the 'microevolutionary' change
BS. Dinosaur to bird transitions have never been classified as microevolution. Please point out a reference where this is referred to this way.
The change from somethign like herrerasaurus to modern pigeons is of course huge, and I am not claiming that, if one accepts the existence of
'kinds' (which I do not accept as a biological term) is 'inter-kind' change. What I am saying is that the change from things like archaeopteryx
to birds, or microraptor and other very bird like dinosaurs shows that the 'morphological gap' between birds and dinosaurs is extremely small.
Birds, again, have extremely few features that dinosaurs don't. How can one seriously contend that more co-ossification of vertrebrae is huge and
fanatastic 'inter-kind' change? Or more reduction of the tail bones, or more fusion of the hand bones? Kinds simply do not exist in biology.
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?
I think we understand each other. If Macroevolution occurs, then transitionals exist, and some should be fossilized. One would recognize
transitionals best by finding fossils with either intermediate feautures or combinations of primitive and advanced features. One finds them. One
finds dinosaurs with feathers. Birds with clawed hands and long bony tails. One finds organisms with very boney fins, or very primitive limbs
attached to their skull case. The expectations of the theory, its 'predictions', are confirmed. If macroevolution does not occur, then one would
expect not to find 'deep homology' or faunal succession or any seperation between fauna. And knowing tht alleles change their frequencies in
populations of organisms and that adaptations occur thru natural selection, if
macroevolution didn't occur then it would have to be becuase
there is some biological process that 'halts' adaptation at some arbitary 'kind' level. None of these 'predictions' of the 'no macroevlution'
theory are found.
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.
Didn’t say there weren’t telling anyone
anything, they are obviously telling you and I completely different things.
Well what are they telling you then? You've been saying, in general, that macroevolution isn't established strongly as a biological phenomenon.
Yet one has observed speciation in modern times, the knowledge that populations adapt to their environment thru natural selection, and the lack of any
biological process that prevents the types of change that are observed in the fossil record, not to mention chronologicla sequences in the fossil
record from 'primitive' to 'advanced' forms. What is all of this telling you if not that evolution occurs?
I agree that everything is not known. However, the evolution obviously occurs.
Microevolution obviously occurs.
Again, i really think that one needs to explain why microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not, or at least give adequate defintions that
distinguish between the two.
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?
The controversy of the lack of some stages in some 'major' transitions? I think it unreasonable to reject the theory merely because a
representative of every population invovled in every transition has not been preserved in the fossil record, let alone found.
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.
These have not been demonstrated to be controversial, just because some people disagree with them does not make them controversial. On the
bino-birds, the only people who disagree are people who promote 'rampant convergence'. This is entirely and utterly unreasonable. Just because
fedducia and some others refuse to accept this does not mean that there is a controversy.
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 it’s very
nature will never be ‘proven.’
Why? Because one doesn't observe frogs giving birth to lizzards? One doesn't observe DNA or gravity either. One can only know gravity by its
affects. Even DNA and proteins can only be seen thru things like x-ray diffraction and the like, thats not observing them directly, thats looking at
their effects and infering their existence. One can't observe quarks or electrons, but one can still see their effects. One can theorize that they
exist, predict some properties and consequences, and then see if those predictions hold true. Heck, even one one diretcly observes something, its
still going thru the analyzing 'experimental' filter of your senses. Merely because one sees something doesn't mean it exists. If you want to
reject "macroevolution" because you've never witnessed it, then you'd also have to reject almost any chemical reaction, or the existence of
transitional states within those reactions that are too small to see or too ephemeral to be 'observed' in the same manner than you want to observe
macroevolution. Besides which, if you are including speciation as macroevolution, then it has been observed.
Nygdan, thanks again for your efforts.
And I thank you for being able to have a rational discussion about this and keeping it civilized. This is a topic that often crumbles into 'much
heat, little light' category, but I think we are bringing up some valid issues and concerns.