Evolution and common genetics

[UTEOTW]

"UTEOTW

You've got a lot of nerve. You accuse me of misrepresenting the two National Geographic articles??

Look at the titles alone:

The 2002 article

Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought?

The 2003 article

Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says

I read BOTH articles. The 2002 article says that chimps and humans may not be as related as previously thought. The 2003 article says chimps are so closely related to humans that they should be considered "human".

If anyone is misrepresenting around here, it is you"

I have a lot of nerve?

Are you sure that your reading of the articles extended past the titles? I am not trying to be snippy or rude, but your representation of the articles seems to be solely based on just the titles.

Let's look at them again.

The second article basically says that genetic data shows that we are more closely related to chimps and that our line diverged from the line leading to chimps more recently than other species which are put into the same genus. The ultimate goal here is conservation. If people were to realize just how closely reltated to us the great apes are, then there might be more support to save their habitat from complete destruction and the extinction of these species.

The first article talks about how previous estimates of the genetic homology between humans and chimps was only able to measure single necleotide substitutions. They completely missed insertions and deletions, shortened to "indels."

More recent studies have shown that the previous estimates of differences by substitution were accurate but that there is also an additional difference accounted for by the indels. This inclusion takes the difference from about 1.5% to about 5%. But there is an important result to be noted. The change from the indels is only found in the non-functional stretches of DNA. They are not found in the coding DNA and the coding DNA still has the same small differences as before. To quote the article.

Indels are common in the non-functional sections of the genome, said Peter Oefner, a researcher at Stanford's Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, California. Scientists estimate that up to 97 percent of DNA in the human genome has no known function. However, he added, indels are extremely rare in gene sequences.

"We haven't observed a single indel in a [gene] to date between human and chimp," said Oefner. Therefore, the revised estimate doesn't alter the amount of DNA that holds information about our species. Humans and chimps still differ by about one percent in gene sequences, he said.

So, are you able to take the actual articles and build your case for these two articles being in conflict or is your argument limited to their titles?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Unless you believe God is inconsistent?? Or maybe he just forgot to tell us about Adam's evolution from another creature??"

Or maybe He was telling us something more important than a blow by blow account of HOW He created. He knew that the details were unimportant to the purpose of the Bible and He gave us the intellect that He knew that we would figure out the details eventually anyway.

"But you misrepresent. You pretend to yourself that my argument doesn't make sense when you know better."

It only makes sense if you go in with the preconceived notions with which you go in. A statement which can be applied to just about any case of interpretation. If you already know the "right" answer, your answer always looks logical to you even if it does not to others.

"And why not? You twist all evidence to fit your preconceived belief in evolution."

Please show where I have twisted anything. I present the evidence, I provide the most resonable interpretaion to me and I ask that if you disagree with the interpretation that you provide a better one.

So far we have silence on those alternates.

"I mean, if someone can claim a lack of transitional fossils can be explained by rapid evolution that leaves no fossil record, nothing is impossible to explain. Yes, Punk Eek again."

Yes, your misrepresentation of PE raises its ugly head again. Do you ever plan to support your alternate version of PE or to just make the same false assertions over and over and to never address the problems that have been raised with your assertions.

I think by now that question has become rhetorical. We know that you care not that you represent such things truthfully. You still think that quote mining is acceptable after seeing so many quotes of your be shown to be completely out of context. One quote was not just out of context, it was made up from thin air. Yet you still post pages of quotes every so often and you never bother to check the originals to see if the quotes are accurate or to provide us with links to the originals so that we can see if they are accurate.

"I just get a little tired of you fact twisters saying I misrepresent the facts."

When I have accused you of misrepresentation, I have backed it up with facts. You do use misrepresentations of the facts often. Whether they are being fed to you or they are your own ideas, I know not. But better fact checking by you should be in order.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

You are too much. I do not misrepresent Punk Eek. Here is a current article from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Let's look at some of the statements in this article.

"This theory is one of the proposed explanations of the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period, and the perhaps typical lack of substantial change of species during their existence."

Comment- You know what this is saying as well as I. Many evolutionists have been honest enough to admit that true transitional fossils are not found. Species ABRUPTLY appear.

I gotta give Gould credit. Even though his theory is ridiculous, he tries to explain evolution by proposing that species do not evolve for many millions of years. In this time they leave many fossils. Then for some unexplained reason, evolution takes place at a fantastic rate. One species is transformed into another in the blink of an eye. Because this transformation happened so quickly, very little fossil record is found.

You can side-step all you want. Punk Eek is a famous and well known evolutionary theory. There is no denying it now, it is too late.

Any thinking person would realize that the very fact this theory exists is proof that transitional fossils do not exist. Otherwise there would be no need for this dumb theory.

But the sudden appearance of species fits Creation perfectly. Species appear whole and seperate just as the Bible says. The lack of transisitional fossils is evidence for creation.

You evolutionists think yourself more intelligent than the average person. But you are blind to seeing the pure foolishness of your own theory.

You also ignore that the sudden appearance of species CLEARLY fits creation.

But some evolutionists have been honest enough to admit that the real fossil record favors creation. I could show you many quotes, but you would say I was misrepresenting the author, or pulling quotes out of context.

Evolutionists always try to discredit their critics. You included.

Creation does not need wacky theories to explain the REAL fossil evidence.

Let's see, what else?

"The theory is often referred to as an explanation for purported "gaps in the fossil record", i.e. the so-called "missing links". However, this confuses two levels of evolution. It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record."

Comment- Oh, I see. This theory only explains small jumps between closely RELATED fossil species. However, it cannot explain TRANSITIONS between major catagories of organisms.

And you say I misrepresent?? Baloney.

Oh, I see how evolutionists do it.

"System approaches can help us to understand more profoundly how a small variation in time can produce a major change to the environment today. However, scientists formed the metasystem transition, where a major change in the metasystem transition may evolve in a very short time period to a higher level of complexity to all living at the time."

Comment- That's the answer, System approaches. I know what that means. It means someone writes a program to explain how a one species turns into another.

I bet this program could prove that a turnip and a kangaroo are related. What a joke.

This article is also full of double-talk. I like this one.

"Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next."

Comment- Gotta love you evolutionists. You've got all the bases covered. Even though evolution is considered to occur in tremendously fast spurts, it is happening slowly and gradually.

You can never find a transitional fossil between species, but you can find different species in the fossil record.

Wow.

How can you argue with logic like that??

Evolutionists remind me of certain religious cults. They have their own book in addition to the Bible. They never really seem to quite believe what the Bible says, they seem to rely on the other book more.

The also have a quick answer when you bring up any problem with their belief. Might sound like double-talk to you, but makes perfect sense to them.

And they always discredit their critics. They claim their critics are ignorant of the truth, or liars out to deceive the elect.

Oh, I'm sorry, I mean they misrepresent.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have the Watchtower. The Mormons have the Book of Mormon.

And you evolutionists have Darwin.

 

[UTEOTW]

Yes, JWI, let's look at the Wikipedi article. I'll bet ahead of time, based on your track record, that you will misrepresent it also.

YOur first quote.

This theory is one of the proposed explanations of the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period, and the perhaps typical lack of substantial change of species during their existence.

Your comments.

"You know what this is saying as well as I. Many evolutionists have been honest enough to admit that true transitional fossils are not found. Species ABRUPTLY appear."

"Any thinking person would realize that the very fact this theory exists is proof that transitional fossils do not exist. Otherwise there would be no need for this dumb theory."

Let's compare.

You claim that this quote says that there are no transitionals.

False.

Look at the wording. It says that we typically do not observe "substantial change of species during their existence" and that "new species [appear] in a geologically short time period."

The quote accurately reflects PE. Most change takes place in relatively small populations and in geologically quick periods of time. This means that we are unlikely to have fossils representing change within a species and only slightly more likely to have fossils representing change at the level of a new species being formed.

There is nothing in there about not observing at some some transitions even at this level. Just that they are rare.

There is nothing in there about not observing transitions at all.

There is nothing in there about not observing transitions at higher taxonomic levels.

The theory is often referred to as an explanation for purported "gaps in the fossil record", i.e. the so-called "missing links". However, this confuses two levels of evolution. It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.

Your comments.

"Oh, I see. This theory only explains small jumps between closely RELATED fossil species. However, it cannot explain TRANSITIONS between major catagories of organisms."

Did you miss the point unintentionally or intentionally?

The transitions between major categories are abundant. There is no need to explain why they are not there because they ARE there. I have presented several such examples to you.

Also, again notice that it does not say that transitions are missing at the species level, just that tehy are "uncommon."

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next.

Your comment.

"Gotta love you evolutionists. You've got all the bases covered. Even though evolution is considered to occur in tremendously fast spurts, it is happening slowly and gradually"

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Change only rapids rapidly when compared to geologic time. These "rapid" transitions are posited to "only" take tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The change is still fairly slow, but not as slow as you would expect if you assumed that all change were steady.

So, as we see, you have misrepresented this article, too.

 

[JWI]

Wow, I found one of those evolution programs.

http://www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/

This is more fun than Pac Man.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, now that we have shown that you misrepesented this, too, do you wish to go back to those two National Geographic articles and show from the articles themselves, rather than just the title, that the details of the articles actually support your assertion?

I fell that I did a pretty good job showing that they did not.

Or will this, too, be lost to time and we will start down some other path that you do not wish to defend once your initial assertion is shown to be false?

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

You are wrong and misrepresent.

The article clearly says,

"It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms."

This sentense said "transitions between major catagories of organisms"

Maybe it is you who should read more carefully.

It is also of note that this says Punk Eek "merely explains". It does not offer proof, just a explanation.

That's true.

Transitions are not abundant. I looked up transition in the dictionary. Only the 1st explanation would apply. It said,

1. Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another.

This is the only definition that fits evolution. The passage from one form or state to another.

This is only true in the fossil record if you ASSUME that one species has transformed into another.

And of course, if you ASSUME that, then the fossil record makes sense. You see one species, then another completely different species.

But it doesn't make it so.

And if you ASSUME Punk Eek is correct, then the fossil record makes sense.

But it doesn't make it so.

Look, micro-evolution has been observed. Even creationists admit that. Bacteria can mutate under certain circumstances to adapt to their environment.

But no-one has EVER observed one species transform into another.

Thousands (probably millions) of experiments have been performed on the fruit fly and bacteria. Many mutations have been induced with a variety of results. But no-one has observed a creature mutate or transform into another type.

And you know it.

And of course I realized that quick change in a few million years would be short in geologic time, but gradual in a general sense.

What a great theory. It has an answer for everything.

Too bad it is just a theory and has no proof.

I do not see why you would accept such a silly theory when creation fits the fossil record perfectly. No additional wacky theories needed.

I know you know Ockham's Razor (Occam's Razor)

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony .

But, because you cling to evolution, you will accept wild theories without proof over a theory that fits the evidence naturally.

Transitions between major types of organisms do not exist.

This is the famous "Missing Link". The term itself proves that transitions do not exist. And Punk Eek proves transitions do not exist.

Funny, the best proof against the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

I am not going to show or discuss the entire articles. The titles alone give the basic gist of the article.

It is all how you look at it. If you look at one set of values, chimps and humans seem almost identical. If you look at a different set of values, they do not.

You always pick the ones that support evolution.

Many on here have tried to point out that similarities in physical form or genetics does not necessarily mean one creature evolved from the same ancestor as another.

Thousands of animals have four legs. It is a great mode or locomotion. It does not prove that all of these animals came from a common ancestor.

God created our physical world with certain natural laws.

A airfoil has proven itself excellent for flight. So bird wings have a foil design, as do airplane wings. So do propellers.

It works.

And so, why would not God give an insect's wings, or a bat's wings an airfoil design??

The sad part is that you understand this. But you cling to evolution, even if you have to constantly come up with fantastic theories to make it work.

I know it was Petrel that loves to talk about the B Cell. Here is an article you will enjoy.

http://www.trueorigin.org/b_cell_maturation.asp

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
It is all how you look at it. If you look at one set of values, chimps and humans seem almost identical. If you look at a different set of values, they do not.

You always pick the ones that support evolution.

Yeah, it makes it especially easy that both of them do!

The article's basic point seems to be that B cells are not analogous to the total evolution of other organisms because B cells hypermutate specific portions of their genomes and come from a pool of non-hypermutated stem cells. This is all rather irrelevant--I never said that B cells were a wonderful model for whole-organism evolution. However, they're a great model for demonstrating that mutation is not always detrimental and does not always result in loss of specificity. Go B cells!

 

[JWI]

OK Petrel

Perhaps some mutations are beneficial. But very few. I have seen estimates in various articles that perhaps 1-5% of mutations could be considered beneficial.

And the vast majority of mutations are neutral.

But a large number of mutations are very harmful. One night I was going to make a list of diseases caused by mutations. There are over 4,000.

But that was not the purpose of the article. It was to show that macro-evolution cannot be shown through mutation in the B Cell.

And that is a big point. No-one has ever demonstrated one species evolving into another. And the fossil record supports this. The Bible supports this. And even many evolutionists admit this.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

OK, here is a letter from the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. And he could not come up with ONE fossil or living transitional.

Nuff said.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
Perhaps some mutations are beneficial. But very few. I have seen estimates in various articles that perhaps 1-5% of mutations could be considered beneficial.

You answered my question!

Good, I can stop asking.

And that is a big point. No-one has ever demonstrated one species evolving into another. And the fossil record supports this. The Bible supports this. And even many evolutionists admit this.

Well, there's the interesting account of the Volvicides, and Archaeopteryx and other fossil birds, and fossil whales with legs. . .

And as for observing an entirely new type of organism arise in the present--do you have a few tens of millions of years to spare?

OK, here is a letter from the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. And he could not come up with ONE fossil or living transitional.

Of course one cannot come up with a living transitional because one does not know what they are transitioning to. As for fossil transitionals, I gave examples above.

 

[JWI]

Petrel said,

"Of course one cannot come up with a living transitional because one does not know what they are transitioning to. As for fossil transitionals, I gave examples above."

I'm sorry, but that is plain dumb for several reasons.

If I saw a green, scaly reptile walking around on it's two back legs, if it's tail was developing feathers, it's two front legs were transforming into wings, and it's snout into a beak, I could easily determine that this creature was either a reptile transforming into a bird, or a bird transforming into a reptile.

And the world should have tens of thousands of such creatures walking around this very minute if evolution were true.

But it is also dumb for this reason. If a person could not determine whether a live creature was a transitional, then how could a person determine a fossil as well???

How can you really determine what any creature is evolving into based on one moment of time? Who knows? When this creature died perhaps it was not through evolving. You have no idea what the end would be.

At least with a living transitional you could observe over time. So a living transitional is superior proof.

This is just another false argument of evolutionists. Yes, only they know a transitional when they see it. The rest of us are too ignorant to know the difference.

It also contradicts God's Word. The Bible says that creation can be "clearly seen".

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I'm sorry, but this describes evolutionists perfectly. They believe in themselves that they are more intelligent than normal people. But they ignore God's creation which is clearly evident.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
I'm sorry, but that is plain dumb for several reasons.

If you're sorry, don't say it. If you're not sorry, don't say you are.

If I saw a green, scaly reptile walking around on it's two back legs, if it's tail was developing feathers, it's two front legs were transforming into wings, and it's snout into a beak, I could easily determine that this creature was either a reptile transforming into a bird, or a bird transforming into a reptile.

You would think this because you know what a reptile is and you know what a bird is, so you know what something in between might look like. However, you don't seem to think that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, even though it is an almost winged, feathered, toothed lizard-bird thing like your example above. . . *scratches head*

But it is also dumb for this reason. If a person could not determine whether a live creature was a transitional, then how could a person determine a fossil as well???

How can you really determine what any creature is evolving into based on one moment of time? Who knows? When this creature died perhaps it was not through evolving. You have no idea what the end would be.

At least with a living transitional you could observe over time. So a living transitional is superior proof.

Have you really not noticed you're answering your question for me?

We can't observe living transitionals because a person's lifespan is less than a century, and the evolution of new life forms takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. As you said above, we have no idea what the end product would be, so we can't take any living species and say that it is a transitional. I might point out penguins, for example, and say they are transitional to some new type of whale-like animal, but it would just be speculation because it's also possible that they will simply go extinct in the next million years.

We can see fossil transitionals because we can observe a fossil with properties of organism A, observe a later fossil with properties of organism B, and then observe another with properties that are in between.

 

[JWI]

Petrel

That is a ridiculous argument. If there are birds in the world (and there is), and there are reptiles in the world (and there is), then we could easily spot a creature in the stages of transformation.

An example of this is the duckbill platypus. This was once widely held by evolutionists as a living transitional.

They've since changed their tune.

But some still believe.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/32238/message/1083548733/Re-+Anyone+seen+evolution+taking+place-

I actually am in agreement with this author. I believe transitional forms would be fairly easy to recognize.

And although a true living transitional would surely die before actual transformations could take place, it would still be a superior subject for study.

Today, the Archaeopteryx is being recognized as a true bird and not a dinosaur. Here is a statement
by Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“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.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

I believe Dr. Feduccia has written over 150 books about birds. Hardly a novice.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by JWI:
When this creature died perhaps it was not through evolving. You have no idea what the end would be.

And although a true living transitional would surely die before actual transformations could take place, it would still be a superior subject for study.

JWI, you've been debating evolution for quite a while now. Do you actually still believe that biological evolution is about changes that occur during a creature's lifetime?

In case you've never heard it before, "Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve."

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
Petrel

That is a ridiculous argument. If there are birds in the world (and there is), and there are reptiles in the world (and there is), then we could easily spot a creature in the stages of transformation.

*sigh* And here I thought we were getting somewhere.

Fortunately for you I just happen to have this book on the origin of birds. I will practice my typing by giving you an excerpt. And I see right here that he mentions Dr. Feduccia by name!

Some researchers have argued that the original birds were just that, birds, rather than dinosaurs. This view was especially favored by Feduccia (1996). More recently, some have argued that Protarcheopteryx was a neoflightless bird. Of course, even if this contention were true, it would not necessarily disqualify dinosaurs from being the ancestors of archaopterygiforms. Besides the urvogel lacked many of the avian features that have been attributed to it. Feduccia (1996) was particularly out of step with the latest information on Archaeopteryx when he cited older studies (in particular Whetstone 1983 and Haubitz et al. 1988) that had concluded without justification that it had a nondinosaurian braincase and suspensorium. Feduccia failed to consider the more recent work that uses better data from the newest specimens to disprove the earlier work (especially Alzanowski and Wellnhofer 1995). For the same reason, failure to consider recent work, L. Marin et al. (1998) overemphasized how close the urvogel was to the much more birdy Confuciusornis.

The avian kinetic system was not present in the urvogel. Except for the short tail, the vertebral column and rib cage were not more derived than those of avetheropod dinosaurs in general. The pectoral girdle was that of an avepectoran dinosaur, not an advanced bird; and the supple-fingered hands were much more dinosaur-like than birdlike. The pelvis and hindlegs were closest to those of other dromaeo-avemorphs, except for the birdy reversed hallux. Today, even the feathers of Archaeopteryx fail to clearly separate it from the dinosaurs. In anatomical grade, Archaeopteryx and its larger relative Protarchaeopteryx were dino-birds, rather than early birds convergent with the dinosaurs.

The fact Ostrom pointed out in 1973 remains true today: if not for their feather impressions, the Archaeopteryx specimens would have been classified as long-armed dinosaurs, specifically, as close relatives of dromaeosaurs. They probably would have been classified as arboreal (in view of the long, grasping hands and reversed hallux) and possibly capable of flight (considering the birdlike shoulder girldle and big arms). Perhaps someone might even have proposed that they were feathered. Likewise, a featherless Protarchaeopteryx would have been labeled a short-tailed dinosaur, again, possibly feathered. The meaning of their few avian features would have been hotly disputed, and many would have cited them as evidence for a close affinity between dinosaurs and birds. The verification of Ostrom's thesis is JM 2257--in which the feather impressions are especially faint--was classified as a theoropod dinosaur for twenty years!

(Urvogel is a German word for "proto-bird" that is used for Archaeopteryx.)

Paul, Gregory S. Dinosaurs of the Air. 2002. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: Maryland. p. 216.

Here's another short page by that author listing some unusual features of Archaeopteryx.

[ November 15, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Petrel ]

 

[JWI]

Mercury

I understand that evolution takes place over a long period of time, more than a lifetime. However, all minor changes would have to occur within a lifetime. Otherwise there would be no changes whatsoever. Agreed??

If for instance the duckbill platypus was truly a living transitional as was once claimed by evolutionists (and I am aware that this claim is no longer made by most), then this creature could be observed over long periods of time. Perhaps small changes could be observed. Afterall, Punk Eek argues that evolution speeds up significantly at points in time.

In fact, it seems to say all evolution is a relatively fast process. (Here's a secret, it happened real fast, as in 6 days).

So what better form to observe than a living transitional??

But perhaps not.

But a living transitional would provide far more than fossils to study. It could be studied in every way. This is why I say it would be a superior subject.

Your argument works against you just as well as it argues against mine. When a fossil is found it represents a moment in time. If evolution were true (I don't believe it for a second), then it only shows the current state of the creature. There is no way to tell which way the creature will go. Perhaps it could transform into a crocodile, or perhaps a bird.

Right?

I don't care what anybody says, birds and crocodiles do not look physically similar to me whatsoever.

So the changes can be drastic. So how can you tell from a single moment in time?

And for this reason you cannot definitely say that a fossil is related to a later form. Perhaps it is so, but it is just as possible this creature went off in some other direction.


"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
I understand that evolution takes place over a long period of time, more than a lifetime. However, all minor changes would have to occur within a lifetime. Otherwise there would be no changes whatsoever. Agreed??

If for instance the duckbill platypus was truly a living transitional as was once claimed by evolutionists (and I am aware that this claim is no longer made by most), then this creature could be observed over long periods of time. Perhaps small changes could be observed. Afterall, Punk Eek argues that evolution speeds up significantly at points in time.

The time scale for evolution is still over tens to hundreds of thousands of years at the most rapid evolutionary rate. You really are not going to be around that long.

No, it would not be possible to tell an animal was a living transitional species by tracking minor changes. It would be impossible to know what its descendants would look like millions of years from now by measuring fractional changes in any trait. The changes would be within the bounds of variation, but the sum over millions of years would produce something different.

Your argument works against you just as well as it argues against mine. When a fossil is found it represents a moment in time. If evolution were true (I don't believe it for a second), then it only shows the current state of the creature. There is no way to tell which way the creature will go. Perhaps it could transform into a crocodile, or perhaps a bird.

Right?

I don't care what anybody says, birds and crocodiles do not look physically similar to me whatsoever.

The relationship between birds and crocodiles is based upon genetic similarity and on the fact that we can trace back fossil crocodilians and birds to an ancestor that was similar. It wasn't like suddenly a dinosaur laid a clutch of eggs and Voila! the first bird and the first crocodile both hatched out. They had a common ancestor and the line diverged and separate evolutionary paths produced both.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

Is this the Etheridge who was there over 120 years ago? Been a while collapsing, hasn't it.

 

[UTEOTW]

"You are wrong and misrepresent.

The article clearly says,

"It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms."

This sentense said "transitions between major catagories of organisms"

Maybe it is you who should read more carefully."

[SIGH]

You are reading something into the page which is not there. Could you please tell just where in that little phrase you get the idea that it is suggesting that "transitions between major catagories of organisms" are missing?

You will not be able to because it is not there.

But since when did Wikipedia become THE authority? Let's look at what some other references have to say.

How about no less an authority than Gould himself?

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that transitions are abundant in the fossil record?

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that the theory explains actual trends in the actual fossil record and is not based on a lack of evidence as you keep falsely asserting?

[Also notice that little hyperlink thingy. I gave you a quote and a link where can go read the whole thing although it is unlikely that anyone would think that I am misrepresenting Gould.]

As to your claim that PE has anything to do with transitions at higher levels, I'll again let the originators speak.

PE is a model for discontinuous tempos of change at one biological level only: the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time.

Gould and Eldredge. (1977) "PE: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3:115.

One more for you.

Because they feel that PE was concocted to "explain away" a purported lack of transitional fossils, some critics have maintained that Eldredge and Gould based their theory of PE on negative evidence. This is a strange argument, however, since the paper where they first proposed PE was completely based on two independent paleontological studies (on pulmonate gastropods and on Phacopsid trilobites), which they described in detail with extremely good temporal resolution. Using positive evidence, these studies showed stasis and rapid evolution that supports the PE model. Furthermore, Gould and Eldredge's second PE paper also extensively analyzed well-resolved paleontological evidence in support of their hypothesis.

That said, PE indeed was hypothesized to explain paleontological discontinuities, but specifically discontinuities between species only, not major taxa. Even young earth creationists hold that "microevolutionary" processes result in new species from closely related species, like the various gastropods, trilobites, and equids considered in the two PE papers.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

Did you get that? The theory is based on evidence, not a lack of evidence.