Message 3 of 52 (540800) 12-29-2009 7:58 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by AndrewPD 12-28-2009 10:20 AM

You'll be happy to learn that you do not have any concern with evolution, rather your problem lies with mistaking creolution for the real thing.

They are. Evolution is the change in the frequency of hereditary traits from generation to generation. Each generation is a breeding population of fully formed individuals, individuals that are members of a "complete" species by the fact that species is defined as a breeding population.

Evolution does not occur IN or TO individuals, it occurs in populations by the process of gradual replacement of hereditary traits over generations, and the selection of traits to best fit the ecology that the breeding population is inhabiting.

Anyone who told you that evolution occurs in individuals either did not understand evolution themselves or they were lying.

Exactly, it actually took millions of years to go from ape-like to modern man. Of course apes are still apes ... no matter what they evolve into.

Which they did. As populations of breeding animals, that evolving from ape-like to modern man.

Which they did. As populations of breeding animals evolving from ape-like to modern man.

Which they did. As populations of breeding animals evolving from ape-like to modern man.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

(B) is Australopithecus africanus, represented by STS 5, a 2.6 My old fossil. Australopithecus africanus is already bi-pedal and has many features seen in humans, with the basic skeleton only needing some tweaks in relative lengths and overall size, and leaving the skull for the area least derived along the path that human evolution has taken.

(M) is Homo sapiens sapiens, represented by Cro-Magnon I, a 30,000 y old fossil, and we also have skeletons and skulls from 160,000 years ago that are anatomically modern, but which are not quite developed enough to be classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, so they are designated Homo sapiens idaltu:

http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

(N) is a modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

In between you can see the intermediates that existed for many generations at a time in the process of evolution from ape-like to human.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Message 17 of 52 (540910) 12-29-2009 11:48 PM

Reply to: Message 4 by AndrewPD 12-29-2009 9:25 AM

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message): ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

Correct, which is why creolution (what you think is evolution) is false and (actual) evolution is not - evolution (the real version) does not claim in any way shape or form that such derived hereditary traits occur due to a single mutation, and certainly that no derived hereditary trait such as you mention occurs in a population, much less an individual, "over night" - rather that they occur over many generations and involving many mutations along the way.

Curiously such things are actually documented in real evolution. See the discussion on the development of the eye by accumulated stages.

Again correct, and again this is also what evolution actually says: that natural selection removes less viable individuals from the breeding population, so that the mutations that cause deformities are also removed from the genome of the population.

And I'm betting that you did not pay attention to what he said about them.

Yes, the Hoatzin has claws when young - a feature that you would expect in a real intermediate between wing-clawed feathered non-flying dinosaurs and non-wing-clawed feathered flying dinosaurs. As do the other derived hereditary trait homologies (feet, breast bones, lungs, etc etc etc) between wing-clawed feathered non-flying dinosaurs and non-wing-clawed feathered flying dinosaurs. This claw is also, interestingly, in the same location as claws seen on Archeopteryx, another indication that you are seeing an intermediate derived hereditary trait. Curiously the claw does not contribute to (nor hinder) the ability of the Hoatzin to fly: it is a vestigial remnant trait, kept to enable the young to climb in trees before they can fly, and is lost in adulthood.

Curiously, reality is totally unimpressed by your opinion or what you can "read" into the clouds in the sky. It blithely continues to actually be reality, including evolution, including speciation, including descent from common ancestors, including the mountains of evidence for evolution that turn up every year, almost like clockwork (perhaps it's designed that way?), including the evidence of the skulls shown. Do you think these are the ONLY ones known? or do you have some inkling of the multitudes of evidence for many of these intermediate stages in the evolution of man? Is it possible that over 100 skulls from the same general location in time and space are all deformed in exactly the same way while simultaneously there are no fossils of non-deformed skulls in those same time and space locations?

In a word - I know that you have. You have a very very very poor understanding of what evolution really involves, and your ignorance, whether due to your inability\unwillingness to learn the facts first, or your being deluded by the falsehoods of others (no fault of your own), is your problem - only you can solve it, and it is possible to solve it ... by learning what evolution is really about.

See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml for a basic introduction and a self-directed educational program from a university that actual teaches the real thing.

Start by discarding what you think you know - it's mostly wrong, misinformed, ignorant and false. This is true to such an extent that what you think are "problems" for evolution are actually why evolution is correct. This is why you are actually correct when you say things that you think evolution has wrong, like:

• None of these can be produced in one mutation (over night) and
• Yet deformed/ill humans find it hard to survive long enough to procreate.

For these are examples of what evolution actually says, and what you are "disproving" is not evolution but the creolutionist falsehood you think is evolution. In other words, whatever you think is evolution, is more likely to be the opposite of what evolution really involves.

Enjoy.

Message 22 of 52 (541029) 12-30-2009 7:25 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by hooah212002 12-30-2009 9:10 AM

enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : code

Message 36 of 52 (541128) 12-31-2009 7:45 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by AndrewPD 12-31-2009 11:24 AM

Because every generation of every species known to man dies out and is replaced by the following generation. Some species take longer than others, some are very fast. A human generation is ~20 years, and primitive man rarely lived into the 30's.

Now, when there is selection pressure, and we follow a species over an extended period of time we see a gradual change in the frequency of hereditary traits in the breeding population from generation to generation.

This change can be very gradual but still form a long term trend. At every stage the population is composed of living, breathing and breeding individuals, but the make-up of individuals is what is changing.

The problem may be due to the subjective and sometimes artificial classification of species, rather than to any real replacement mechanism. Take Pelycodus as an example:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

---

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

A "lumper" could say that all the fossils from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii are all one species that is just changing some hereditary parameters, including size. All the upper fossils are descendants of the original population at the bottom, so the {breeding population} has not "died out" - just old members died after giving birth to following generations.

Note that this trend covers millions of years and several mutations that are cumulatively selected by the selection pressure that is favoring the survival and breeding of larger individuals.

Notice also, that while the general trend persists, that the progression from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii staggers back and forth from the mean progression line.

So why did Pelycodus ralstoni die out by the time Pelycodus jarrovii lived?

Wiles and the possibility of beneficial mutations had nothing to do with this: the Dodo evolved into a flightless bird over many generations, because a flightless bird is less likely to be blown to sea from an island, where the threat to survival is higher; the Dodo was hunted to extinction in the course of a generation or two - way too fast for evolution to provide an answer to the people that (a) found the island and (b) needed a large food source to provide for their exploring vessels.

Interesting read, btw:

The Song of the Dodo:

quote:

---

In a wonderful weave of science, metaphor, and prose, David Quammen, author of The Flight of the Iguana, applies the lessons of island biogeography - the study of the distribution of species on islands and islandlike patches of landscape - to modern ecosystem decay, offering us insight into the origin and extinction of species, our relationship to nature, and the future of our world. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

---

The book is an excellent introduction to island bio-geology, and to the work of Alfred Russell Wallace, the "other" Darwin. The title comes from the fact that no record of what the song of the Dodo was like - they were hunted to extinction that fast.

Extinct species are replaced at all. If the ecology continues to exist, then other organisms will become adapted to it if they can take advantage of the void left by the extinction. New organisms are unlikely to resemble the extinct species in any way.

Humans don't have better eyes because they need them, they have better eyes because their ancestors were able to take advantage of mutations not necessarily available to snakes (which still have a very similar eye, btw).

Evolution is opportunistic rather than need driven. Natural selection does not cause a needed mutation to occur, rather it selects the best that opportunity provides.

And every intermediate stage is represented by an existing species, thus demonstrating that no intermediate stage is worthless to the organisms involved. Consider the slight but measurable difference between a person who is blind and one who can perceive light versus dark.

That's not the issue. The issue is how the eye or the knee evolved from what was available before. Nobody is saying that you can remove parts and have an equally functional eye, just that the developing eye only needs to provide a survival and breeding advantage to the organism at each stage.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : T

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Message 49 of 52 (554297) 04-07-2010 8:04 AM

Reply to: Message 47 by chrisMuriel 04-07-2010 1:49 AM

It has, it is, there are.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. This has been observed in the world around us in all living species. This is fact.

We also see the same patterns in the fossil record, such as the record for Pelycodus:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

---

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

Note that every level is intermediate between the one below and the one above -- every fossil in that series is an intermediate.

Curiously what you are comfortable with, and what your opinion is on evolution, etc, are both completely incapable of altering reality in any way.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message): ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

Message 51 of 52 (554564) 04-09-2010 12:03 AM

Reply to: Message 50 by chrisMuriel 04-08-2010 7:45 AM

Always a good thing to recognize when you are not an expert in a field.

I'm curious why you felt you needed to link to an article that discusses a paper, rather than the paper itself, especially as the link is provided and the whole paper is online:

quote:

---

Dinosaur experts Mark Goodwin (of UB Berkeley) and Jack Horner (of Museum of the Rockies) recently published an academic paper in the online, peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, outlining the similarities between species in a specific group of dinosaurs: pachycephalosaurids.

---

Especially as your article seems to make conclusions not found in the actual paper, but seems to sensationalize the actual information.

Of course you must realize that a hoax is "something intended to deceive or defraud" - ie an intentional fraud committed for the purpose of fooling people.

This would be like stating quotes from people that are not part of the academic paper cited as the sole reference for the article in question, while implying that they are an integral part of the paper.

Perhaps you think you have a real bonafide hoax that you can list on Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ... but I doubt it.

Instead what you are seeing is the process of science refining knowledge based on additional information.

the actual paper:

quote:

---

Extended neoteny and late stage allometric growth increase morphological disparity between growth stages in at least some dinosaurs. Coupled with relatively low dinosaur density in the Upper Cretaceous of North America, ontogenetic transformational representatives are often difficult to distinguish. For example, many hadrosaurids previously reported to represent relatively small lambeosaurine species were demonstrated to be juveniles of the larger taxa. Marginocephalians (pachycephalosaurids + ceratopsids) undergo comparable and extreme cranial morphological change during ontogeny.

... Now, with a greater number of pachycephalosaurid skulls from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America available for study, and the use of comparative cranial morphology, histology and computer tomography, multiple lines of evidence support our alternative hypothesis that Dracorex hogwartsia and Stygimoloch spinifer represent earlier growth stages in a single taxon, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.

---

So the scientists (that are experts in their field) have refined our knowledge of dinosaurs based on new information, specifically sufficient information to show the growth transitions involved.

Was the previous classification as three different species a hoax to intentionally mislead people? Or was it the best explanation available at the time from the limited information available at the time?

Even assuming that it was true that 1/3 of all dinosaur species classification are actually developmental stages of other dinosaurs, does that alter evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet in any significant way?

Even if we assume that 1/3 of all known fossil species is so misclassified, does that alter evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet in any significant way?

Please consider, first and foremost, that the information in the article is brought to you by scientists doing science, that this is an increase in the accuracy of our knowledge, not a refutation of it, and that it in no way suggests that evolution is wrong.

So thanks for bringing this article to my attention:

Extreme Cranial Ontogeny in the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus
John R. Horner1*, Mark B. Goodwin2
1 Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America,
2 Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America
PLoS ONE 4(10): e7626. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007626
Download PDF

It will be interesting to see how many creationists misrepresent this article.

Enjoy.