Always talking about micro-evolution?

You quoted me from a different post: To which you asked: Well, I have done quite a bit of research on this, although it has been a while. Since last night, I have done quite bit of reading and searching to shake the rust loose. The web is FULL (as you probably already know) of info about this topic. On a big scheme, much of the information that non-creationist writers provide does not support some of the bold conclusions that they make. Some of the info they provide, raises more questions than it answers. I know you'll probably just repeat your question, asking for support for this claim. Well, let me respond by asking a a question that I couldn't seem to find clear agreement on in peer (evolutionist) reviews:
Does Archae's ancestry stem from the Ornithopoda, Pseudosuchia, theropoda, or Sphenosuchidae groups? There is much discussion and debate on this, some circles feeling one or more of the groups have been scientifically eliminated long ago, while others still claim validity.Also, if Archae is a transitional form, how is it that his feathers seem fully developed even though he shows no physical ability to take off from a standing start? In birds that we know, the flight muscles make up approx 36% of the bird's body weight. Supposedly, the theoretical absolute minimum required muscle mass for powered flight is 16% muscle mass. Archae shows evidence of only 9% pectoralis muscle mass. The only thing that I can seem to find in compelling agreement in regard to Archae's flight capabilities, is that he simply couldn't get off the ground. But again, how can we explain the fully formed feathers using the illumation of ToE? All of the information I quote is from non-creationist websites; I saw only one creationist website (I wasn't looking too hard, I'm sure there are more) but disregarded any info from it (since you don't seem to like organ music), and used none of that info for this writing.But I must say that leaving out a creationist viewpoint is like the democratic party asking that the republican viewpoint be left out of senate debates. The scientific community does indeed fail to agree with itself in regard to evolution; not sure how you can just deny that. In creationist circles, they don't agree on things either, unless they've managed to come together since the last time I looked. I won't mention names of people or names of circles because that will only result in name calling on the same order as when certain arab nations call each other infidels, or when republicans and democrats call each other names. To restrict a legitimate viewpoint (and we could endlessly debate the definition of "legit" as well) would end debate and usher in something that looks more like a dictatorship. The dems and repubs, when at the negotiating table with, let's say, the Russians, the Americans are careful to appear in full agreement with each other. But once they get back to their dressing rooms, a fist-fight usually erupts over numerous disagreements. At the next session, armed with ill-gotten info from surveillance cameras, the Russians could accuse the Americans of not even being in agreement with each other, to which the Americans could easily reply "Oh, that? No, we just love each other, that wasn't a fight..."Like a waiter pouring stale diet-coke in your lap, while telling you it's raining. Either way, the customer is still sopping wet, and the waiter shouldn't be surprised when he doesn't get a tip.

Well, I'm not going to disagree with much of what you say or it will just be a repeat of what I've already said. But I'll touch on a couple of items: Like I said, series just don't exist. The missing links probably outnumber the actual fossils that we've found (ok, I'll admit hyperbole at that one). We can add color, interpretation, even a good story line, but the series simply do not appear in the fossil record. Do you have an opinion of what was it that compelled someone to generate the "piltdown man" fraud? See a previous post from, I believe, "JohnF" who rightfully stated that Archae was classfied a as bird for "convenience". Some evolutionist writings (available on the web) claim this, while others hotly contest it. Not alot of agreement on it either way, although there has been much changing of horses in mid-stream over the last 100 years. These are my words (as are at least 95% of my posts) after comparing what non-creationist evolutionists write, so I'm not standing firm on those words, but am indeed open to debate as with most anything that I write. Agreed. I never said it was a hoax.

Although it's unlikely we will ever be absolutely sure, the generally held conclusion is that Archy descended from a theropod. From Archaeopteryx's Ancestry:

quote:

---

Apart from the theropod ancestry, there have been three other suggested ancestral groups for Archae, the Ornithopoda, the Pseudosuchia and the Sphenosuchidae.

​

The Ornithopod ancestry theory was based on the tasus and pelvis in various dinosaurs which were supposed to approach the condition found in birds. However, most of the taxa used in the original theory in 1883-4 are now known to be saurischian rather than ornithischian. Whilst there was a tendency for the reduction of the hallux (big toe) in some ornithischians, it was never apparently opposable as it is in Archae. It was suggested that Archae had a pelvis which was very ornithischian, however, recent work has shown that this is an artifact of post mortem movement of elements of the pelvic region and there is very little similarity to the ornithischian pelvis. With this, the link between ornithischians and Archae disappears and so it is now thought that there is no link between them.

​

It was suggested that birds arose from an almost unknown Middle or Late Triassic reptile group, the Sphenosuchidae (Walker 1972, 1974), which also gave rise to the crocodiles. The theory is based on a single specimen of Sphenosuchus. However, in their general configurations, neither the skull and jaws, nor the scapulo-coracoid of Sphenosuchus is remotely suggestive of affinities with Archae (Ostrom 1976). More recently, the main proponent of the crocodile-bird hypothesis has stated that the hypothesis "has become so tenuous that it is very difficult to sustain." (Walker 1985, p. 133)

​

The pseudosuchian link was very much favoured earlier this century. However this was, by and large, based on Heilmann's reconstruction of the Berlin specimen, which has since proven to be inaccurate. According to Ostrom (1976 p. 159):

quote:

---

There are very few anatomical resemblances between Archaeopteryx and any pseudosuchian. In fact, only in one feature does any pseudosuchian resemble Archaeopteryx more closely than does any theropod, this being the tibia to femur ratio in Scleromochlus, Lagosuchus and Lagerpeton, where the tibia is from 20% to 30% longer than the femur. Amongst theropods, only in struthiomimids, Compsognathus, Microvenator and Deinonychus is the tibia longer than the femur but by only 10% to 15%. In all other features, the closest resemblance to the morphology preserved in Archaeopteryx is found in coelurosaurian theropods." [original emphasis]

---

---

This is hardly a "hot debate". I notice that you didn't actually present any references for your claim, you just wrote "The web is FULL (as you probably already know) of info about this topic" and a few more unsupported assertions. The Web is indeed full of info about this topic, but that proves nothing; only references to the scientific litreature or Web pages with sumamries and references to the scientific literature, such as I posted, are relevant to establishing the existence or nonexistance of "hot debate in scientific circles".Shall I presume that you are abandoning your claim of a hot debate, since you have presented no evidence for it and have not attempted to present any evidence for it?Your other questions are interesting, but I don't know the answers for them off the top of my head; start with the link I posted. Your questions about Archy are irrelevant to your claim that there is scientific debate. No, it's sort of like leaving the raccoon viewpoint out of Senate debates; it's just irrelevant. Creationists have abandoned science in their refusal to question all their preconceptions and their insistence on ignoring, distorting, and making up evidence to fit their preconceptions. Creationists have long since given up on trying to actually establish themselves as scientists; AIG and ICR and the like are, with a few rare exceptions, just making a good-looking storefront for the faithful. Creationists have failed in all their attempts to legislate themselves as science, and the courts have repeatedly found that what is proffered as "creation science" is not scientific by any definition.Creationists can be scientists; let them start actually practising science and they will be welcome in thbe scientific comunity.

I think you're considerably mistaken about this. The fossil record is littered with transitional organisms: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQwhich is what you would expect - almost every organism is a transitional form in a situation of continuous evolutionary change. Justlike you're the transitional form between your parents and your children. Examine a specimen of Archeopteryx. You can read about many of its features here: All About Archaeopteryx(Hopefully you won't complain about being sent to links; these pages are quite well-written, well-documented, and lay it out considerably clearer than anything I could probably write. Nonetheless if you have any questions or would like to dispute some points I'm sure we'd be happy to address them; that's probably for another topic, though.)You can see that it has the most obvious feature of birds: feathers. But it also has indisputably reptilian, or at least non-bird features: no bill, free trunk vertebrae (bird trunk vertebrae are fused), and a neck that attaches to the rear of the skull, not the bottom as in birds.It's difficult indeed to view Archeopteryx as anything but a transition between reptiles and birds, and certainly impossible to view it as simply a variation on bird "kinds" unless you're stretching the meaning of the term "bird" so far as to render it meaningless. Why would it? Dogs didn't evolve from frogs, nor dogs from frogs. Rather, the common ancestor of all mammals (including dogs) evolved from a reptile, which shares a common ancestor with all reptiles, which itself evolved from an amphibian.The fact that you can't find transitional forms between any two given modern species is not evidence that they don't share common ancestors at some point. You need to see evolution as a bush, not a ladder.

Do you have an opinion on who it was that uncovered the fraud, and how it was uncovered?

You've mistaken healthy debate for a theory in crisis.Certainly many of the minutae of the ToE are under debate; the precise operation of the mechanisms and the precise details of the historical narrative are always under constant revision.What's not under any kind of scientific dispute is that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate theory, or that it satisfactorily explains the broad strokes of the history of life on this planet.It's difficult to see how a reasonable person could mistake a debate about "is this the ancestor of that, or the other way around?" as some kind of failure in confidence of the whole thing.

Oh my goodness, are you taking your info from this guy? You might want to read a little closer. His main idea is that the fossil record doesn't show many gaps, it's just that MOST of the fossils that could actually eliminate these gaps have yet to be found! The gaps will be eliminated once they ARE found. As I read his stuff, I could almost hear him sobbing, "it's not fair!" Good grief, that's what Darwin said in different words many moons ago. The transitional forms are not there except in the eyes of those who want to see something so badly that they try to hallucinate it into existence.Any idea WHY (or HOW, or what compelled) Stephen J. Gould came up with his ludicrous "punctuated equilibrium" idea? I won't quote him, because you'll probably claim it's out of context. I'll let you quote him for me.But look at this quote from the your website link shown above: There's something about heated debate again, (that your camp says doesn't exist in evolutionist circles). The debate may or may not be quoted in context, but debates certainly do exist. But that was on a different post so I won't re-hash. Oh, really? Well, maybe you send this gentleman an email suggesting that he get out a little more. Having lunch with Gary Parker might be a good start. He can provide names of lots of other paleontologists that no longer believe in evolution. But I'm sure you would label them all evolutionist heretics of some kind. Already have. All seven, actually (if I counted right). I never said it was a hoax. I just refered to several points of debate, the mentioning of the hoax was just for sideshow effect. But I'm not saying it NOT a hoax either. I'm just saying it certainly doesn't help matters that evolutionists have conconcted hoaxes before.Ok, I'm sure you'll ask for an example. There are plenty, going back decades. So, here's a recent one:On 10-15-99, "USA Today" today posted an article that stated: Wow, evolutionists thought that was one more nail in God's coffin; long live Darwin, eh?Um, wait... on 1-25-00, and article with the headline: appeared in USA today:"Scientists unveil..."? Then label it an "honest mistake"? So much for "peer-reviewed" research. First they lay an egg, then they hatch it. Had they just called their baby "ugly" for what it was, and publicly flogged the perpetrators, it could have been waved off as just another overzealous bunch of supporters that every camp possesses. However, this info was peer-reviewed extensively before being "unveiled". After it was unveiled, the forgery came under more objective scrutiny and found to be a forgery, only to be "covered up" as an "honest mistake". The old cover-up thing was what helped make Gerald Ford our nation's first "instant President".Piltdown man, Heidelberg man, the from-the-beginning ludicrous Nebraska man (which was imaginatively conjured using a SINGLE TOOTH, that later was confirmed to have come from an extinct pig), and Peking man, and many other hoaxes, frauds, forgeries, and/or honest mistakes. Evolutionists talk freely about the Scopes monkey trial, but become indignant (and often break out in a cold sweat) when the Jena trial is mentioned.If Darwinian evolution is so easily defended, why have there been so many forgeries and attempted forgeries?Oh, and now, everyone, sit back and enjoy the forthcoming ad hominem attacks (that we have seen so many times before) against those people who....
Well, I don't want to spoil the fun. Just sit back and enjoy.

Apparently you might want to read closer. She makes it quite clear that she shows both the large number of transitional forms that have been found, and, as a nod to fairness, the remaining gaps in the fossil record.Nobody's saying that there's aren't gaps. But to say that there are no transitional forms, as you did, is obviously incorrect:

quote:

---

I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms

---

The gaps in the fossil record. Again, nobody has claimed that there are no gaps. But the existence of some gaps is not a refutation of evolution. That's your second straw man in this post. Again, we agree that heated debate occurs. Like I said, though, you misconstrue that as some kind of crisis in confidence with the theory. Nothing could be further from the truth.It would help the debate considerably if you restrict yourself to arguing against only the claims that we're actually making, not the straw men that you're making up. I can't speak for the author, but I imagine that she would assess the claims of these "heretics" to see if they're founded on false premises, fallacious reasoning, or a prior commitment to Biblical inerrancy. And it hardly helps creationists that they've never been the ones to uncover the hoaxes. Of course, they try not to mention that. To the contrary - that's peer-review at its best, debunking unsupported claims and exposing fraud scientists driven more by noteriety than a need for accuracy. One more claim debunked not by creationists but by a scientist's evolutionist peers. That's how it's supposed to work. All exposed by evolutionists when these fossils contradicted, not supported the evolutionary timeline. A perfect example of the predictive value of the Theory of Evolution; I'm glad you're bringing these up. Fraud scientists driven by noteriety, or simply good judgement clouded by fame. Same reason you find crooked televangelists.

quote:

---

I believe we were already fully aware of your outstanding abilities to copy and paste.

---

I am equally impressed with your ability to miss information you ask for that is sitting nice an pretty in the abstract of a paper.

quote:

---

I really thought maybe I could have a decent conversation with you. Instead, you have reduced this discussion, like so many others, by going technical.

---

Arguing from ignorance is nice at the water cooler and is simple. Science is technical, difficult, complex. Deal with it. You either learn about the subjects you want to debate or leave the debate to those who know something about science. It is not my fault you are over your head with the simplest of journal articles.

quote:

---

I'm here to pick the brains of other human begins and enjoy some authentic dialogue. So,

---

You are here to make the same tired old assertions that every creationist before you has made...it is amazing that you guys don't even read what the last creationist said.

quote:

---

Could we rewind and start over? I would appreciate an answer to my question of post #49.

---

In the interim, Loudmouth addressed this issue. And if you would be a bit less lazy and read the articles, or take a basic biology class maybe you could answer it yourself. You would see from the papers that the STR false positive rates depend on the population genetics of the population under study.I am highly amused by your terrible fear of a technical discussion
..epigenetics got you scared? STRs keep you awake at night? Ahh fear of what others have a clue about and you don't...boo

quote:

---

. I still suspect Mammuthus knows where this was really going and dodged me in a way you still don't realize. Had he responded back to refute my thoughts, I would taken his word for it and freely apologized for my method of smoking him out.

---

I have about as much idea where you are going with your nonsense as I have with Stephen ben Yeshua's search for demons in farts.It is interesting that a direct link to the peer reviewed literature on STR's, their benefits, and the difficulties that is open for YOU to look into yourself without having to take my word for it, is seen by you as evading the question. Excuse me for treating you like a person who is capable and interested in educating themselves in the subject they wish to debate. Obviously I should have assumed the ocean sized hole in your education would require that I explain STR's to you using pictures of TeleTubbies or Barney the dinosaur singing the STR false positive song

Skeptick asks:

quote:

---

Any idea WHY (or HOW, or what compelled) Stephen J. Gould came up with his ludicrous "punctuated equilibrium" idea?

---

I don't see what's so ludicrous about it. Gould and Lewontin combined the patterns of change paleontologists recognize in the fossil record with the results of population studies from people like R. A. Fisher. He demonstrated that the gaps in the fossil record are just where we would expect them.To use an analogy, think of the flip-movies you can draw on note pads. You draw a character on one side of the pad walking over to the other side by making each page a slight progression from the previous one. That was how we used to see the fossil record: species were each a slight progression from the last, in a smooth gradation from one to the other. The only reason the flip-movie of species wasn't gradual, people assumed, was that most of the pages were missing.Gould showed us a different flip-movie, where the character stays on the left side of the page for a long time, then suddenly he disappears when a new character appears in the middle of the page. Then he stays there for a long time, before suddenly he disappears when a third character appears on the right side of the page. The transitionals are still there, but the pages chronicling them are so few (and elapse so quickly) that we don't even notice them.The small populations where the real changes take place are not well represented in the fossil record because they weren't very numerous and weren't around for long. Fossils come instead from the large, stable species that don't show much change over time. And even recently extinct species like the passenger pigeon (which once numbered in the billions) don't seem to have left any fossils, so we can't assume there's paleontological record of every significant species.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Certainly. I believe someone else countered me as to whether the wolf really evolved from the coyote or not, but that wasn't my point. Dogs, coyotes, wolves. All are in the same genus "canis", and it only seemed logigal to me that wolves, since they're bigger and better, would have been the natural selection over a dog or a coyote. If that was a mistake, ok then, my mistake.

---

"Bigger" isn't always "better". It takes more resources to maintain a larger organism, for example.Why did you consider wolves "better" than dogs or coyotes, anyway? Better in what context?"Better" in an evolutionary context means that it survives as a species more successfully than it's competitors. By this definition, dogs, since they became connected to humans and were considered useful and pleasurable companions, rode our shirtails to evolutionary dominance. By contrast, wolves became competitors with humans for territory, so they were driven, by humans, to the brink of extinction.Is this what you meant?

quote:

---

As far as species go, dogs and wolves are interfertile, which by definition of the term "species", makes dogs and wolves the same species.

---

No, dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The split between their subspecies is very recent and their DNA is almost identical.

quote:

---

But let's say that's wrong too, because none of that was my point.

---

Yep, you're wrong.

quote:

---

And if you mean my reference to a frog turning into an elephant, yes, I believe that's macro evolution just as you'll find evolutionists admitting to on several websites and publications.

---

Well, a frog and an elephant share a common ancestor, and that's evolution.Can you explain, considering the very good evidence we have of the amphibian-to-reptile-to-mammal evolutionary pathway, the evidence you have that puts this into question?

quote:

---

If you meant that part about life springing from rocks; isn't that where life started here on earth according to what kids are taught in our schools?

---

The origin of species (ToE) and the origin of life are two different theories.I was never taught that life sprang from rocks, and I don't know of any science textbook which says this. Can you provide a quote or a link which supports your claim?

quote:

---

And before rocks, there was lots of hydrogen gas although I didn't think it necessary to list all the elements that existed after the big bang. Why would I not believe our teachers of the great theory of evolution, the study that avoids the question of the origin of life?

---

Do you fault the study of aerodynamics because it does not include an explanation of where air comes from?The ToE does not address how life first began; it addresses life once it got here.

quote:

---

So, the supporting information that you're seeking can be found in the textbooks that you're already familiar with. Forum admin doesnt' allow a whole lot of cut and pasting, so I'll refrain from doing that here.

---

Oh, cutting and pasting relevant quotes from Biology textbooks to support your claims that the ToE addresses the origin of life would be allowed, I am sure of it. I'll take the responsibility for asking you to cut and paste.You could always post a link, too.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-09-2004]

For the usual ad hominem attack on those who did the uncovering? That's your camp's usual defense, but it doesn't change the information gathered. Failing to read a rapist his rights, doesn't change what he did to a fellow human. Or, if we want to discuss frauds and forgeries, give me some more specifics on these "people" who did some of the uncovering.

I wrote: You responded: Um,... What?? I said they're interfertile, and you correct me by saying they can interbreed? Interfertile means capable of interbreeding. I've even heard plenty of evolutionists admit that. Do you have some sort of new revelation? Or did you just miss that? I'll give you another chance on that one.
But the other part you may have missed, (which evolutionists never seem to miss, at least in my experience) is that evolutionists make an issue about a creationist's useage of the word "kind" while instead clinging to their own inconsistent use of the word "species". A basic requirement of lumping two creatures into the same species is to be interfertile (or be capable of interbreeding, since you seem to more easily grasp the meaning of that word), but yet dogs and wolves are NOT in the same species. Are they scientifically different, other than the dog having buried the hatchet with their human captors? I already know what your standard reponse will be, except for the cold sweating and figeting that I normally see during a debate with an evolutionist face to face. But I'm interested if you can come up with something new and creative, since that seems to be your area of expertise. The term "better" or "improvement" or "moving up in the world" or "favored races by natural selection" or the "strong live and the weak die" or "the big lion kills the little lion and steals his wife" or the "favored race of aryans kill the jews and steal their stuff" kind of bigger and better is what I meant. If I'm not mistaken, I think I got the concept from a book called "Origin of Species" written by a man who seemed to think God had died, but has since died himself. As for dogs, coyotes and wolves, I have no idea which Darwin might consider "better" (or the naturally selecte), despite the speculation that an ordinary wolf probably would be able to serve her young offspring a fine, freshly prepared meal after a fight with a dog or coyote. Which variables in the process of natural selection would have developed the wolf from the coyote or vice versa (I don't know which direction, but I'm sure DNA research can tell us), I don't know. I thought you would. Nope, you just missed it, as discussed above. Your failure to understand terms like "interfertile" was the first tipoff. But I love you like any student still trying to learn. Sorry, you have no scientific evidence for this. Only some scientific data with an incredible number of assumptions. You might want to take a deeper look into Darwin's black box. Did I say I have evidence for that? I don't have evidence for that. I've never found an evolutionist who could either provide any, just lots of verbiage, and references to many frauds, and forgeries. If there is evidence, your camp seems to be hiding it pretty well because they can't show us any. Why are you saying that "we" have evidence? Are you hoping I have something you don't, and that I might accidently let it slip? Well, if I just quote you the info, will you accept it or play word games? The quotes come from basic textbooks from everywhere. If you promise to be honest, I'll bet you could even quote some of the info from memory as you learned it in school.
But before I quote, think just for a minute about your question. Where did life first pop up? Ah, yes, you remember; it started in a "primordial soup". But what was this soup? It was a "bubbling broth of complex chemicals". Ok, so where did these chemicals come from? Ah, you DO you remember now, yes? The quote about rocks:
"...it rained for millions of years, slowly dissolving the rocks..."
Or do you know of another place where the chemicals came from? And this is what is taught in the "evolution" segment of science, but yet we say we don't teach that in evolution.Or do you have other information as to what the rain may have landed on? Do you not see what your ToE has been reduced to? ToE, as Darwin clearly knew, cannot avoid discussing the origin of life itself, as I've explained in several other posts, and which has not been refuted other than to just repeat the your statement. But since you've done so, can you explain what Darwin meant by insinuating (I'm using that word to ensure the doors stay wide open for real discussion) that humans and plants are related and have a common ancestor? Uh, or did he say, 4 or 5 common ancestors? (that's the part where professional gamblers head for the exits, which is why Mammuthus is still avoiding one of my main questions). Can you show me fossil evidence that animals evolved from plants? If you quote highly speculative DNA "evidence", I'll quote from "Darwin's black box" so be ready.

What, pray tell, are you going on about here? Who the heck wants to attack the folks that exposed this hoax?