Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 246 (125787)
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


The shark descended from a primitive order of sharks, a long lineage, its beginning predating almost all orders of animals that exist today. Even insects only appeared after the first sharks. Is this truly believable? Or is it pure speculation, a fairy tale or science fiction invented by ambitious scientists?
Firstly, i can see the logic in evolution and how small changes over time can result in a supposedly different species, (meaning they do not mate with each other but can) but to be fair to the Creationists - where is the complete lineage?
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
The so called 'transitional' forms don't prove evolution, perhaps they give evolutionists hope that they are on the right track but that is it!
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers. bear in mind I need to see ancestors that are 'different' not elephants with differerent amount of tusks. e.g show me an elephant ancestor that is very unlike an elephant..
This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence. A few so called 'transitionals' are nothing - you need to have one complete lineage.
The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found. This is the ultimate test of any theory in science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2004 4:43 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 07-21-2004 5:17 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2004 10:09 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 6 by Gary, posted 07-21-2004 12:52 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2004 12:54 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 07-21-2004 1:02 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 07-21-2004 1:03 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 4:29 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 31 by Ooook!, posted 07-23-2004 2:29 PM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 153 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 5:59 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 232 by derwood, posted 09-21-2004 12:03 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 245 by SAGREB, posted 11-26-2004 5:08 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 246 by Soplar, posted 01-08-2005 12:22 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 246 (126160)
07-21-2004 3:30 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 246 (126168)
07-21-2004 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


Your post strongly suggests that you are judging the adequacy of the evidence without even a good idea of what evidence actually is known. Not a very good start.
Provided you do not demand more than the fossil evidence can reasonably provide there are sequences which seem to fit the bill. One well-known example is horse evolution.
This article is 7 years old (and therefore out of date - fossils of previously-unknown species continue to be discovered) but covers the transitionals in the vertebrates.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
It includes plentiful references for further reading - if you have access to a university library or similar resource.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 246 (126182)
07-21-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


SkepticTA,
This has become my pretty much standard response to the claim that the fossil record doesn't support evolution.
"Given that the cladograms under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The cladogram is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex cladograms) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.
Assessing Congruence Between Cladistic and Stratigraphic Data
Stratigraphic Consistency Index
The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).
Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.
SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?"
Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these cladograms infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), macroevolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 04:20 AM
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 09:37 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 246 (126236)
07-21-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


Skeptic to all writes:
you need to have one complete lineage.
Why? To convince you? Most scientists seem quite prepared to take the already existing preponderance of evidence as good enough, and much of it is physical evidence. You are proposing a strawman argument with evolutionist saying 'Evolution is true because we have all the fossils showing how elephants evolved from shrews.' which is not an argument I have ever heard put forward as compelling evidence for accepting evolution.
Saying that there is no 1 single 'complete' fossil lineage doesn't mean that there is no physical evidence of evolution and certainly doesn't mean that scientists are lying. At the worst all it means is that we don't have fossils showing every transitional stage in any 1 evolutionary lineage, so what? Such a fossil lineage still wouldn't be 'proof' to those who object to evolution on religious grounds.
Why do you assume that we should have such a thing? Do you think we have found all the fossils in the earth? Are you certain that at least enough fossils of every stage in such a lineage will exist allowing us to produce one reasonably complete fossil for morphological comparisons? What criteria would you want to distinguish specific 'transitional' fossils. If the elephant 'ancestor' is very unlike an elephant what will make you believe that it is an elephant ancestor? Look up Moeritherium and tell me if it is alike/unalike enough for you.
As an addendum, being a different species can also mean not being able to mate with each other, in as much as producing fertile offspring, even if you wanted to.
TTFN,
WK
(fixed UUB by edit, adminNosy)
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-21-2004 09:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 9:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 246 (126275)
07-21-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


If you disagree with Creationism because it is simply a bunch of counterarguments to the theory of evolution, and you disagree with the theory of evolution because there isn't enough evidence in your opinion, do you have any ideas that explain both the manner in which life forms came to be as they are now and the fact that older fossils are found in lower strata?
I think you misunderstand what a transitional organism is. Any fossil whose species later evolved into something else is a transitional organism. We might not find every species of organism that there is to find, but a reason for that is that between any parent and daughter pair of species, there are countless transitionals. You might be able to find some of them, but there is no need to search for all of them.
The theory of evolution has stood up for over a hundred years. It is unlikely to change in a fundamental way. Sufficient evidence has been discovered to assume we have it right this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 246 (126276)
07-21-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


StA, do you have birth certificates for everyone in even one line of your ancestry back to the Norman Conquest? Or even to the American Revolution? That's the equivalent of what you're asking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2004 1:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 246 (126279)
07-21-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found. This is the ultimate test of any theory in science.
Well, so far it has held up to every challenge for 150 years. And every new discovery has supported it and actually strengthened it. So my guess is that it will stand up for a long, long time to come.
We do know that right now there is nothing that has been found that does not support the TOE and that there are no other theories that have been presented that have not been falsified.
So what would you think might challenge the TOE?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 246 (126280)
07-21-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


quote:
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
And criticizing evolution does not prove creationism.
quote:
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
Why should there be? However, we have ample DNA evidence that supports the lineages theorized from the incomplete fossil record. If the lineages were lies then the DNA evidence shouldn't match up. However, lineages derived from fossils and lineages derived from DNA match up.
quote:
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence.
The arguments are a direct result of the physical evidence. Nothing in science is theorized without physical evidence. The fossil record is only one source of evidence for evolution, DNA is another deep source for evolution, and current observations of evolutionary mechanisms is another. What you need to show is why independent variables, such as fossils and DNA, keep pointing to the same thing: evoluton.
quote:
This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)
Why should there be a complete lineage? A very good example of why the fossil record is incomplete is the passenger pigeon. This bird went extinct in the early 20th century. When european settlers first came to north america these birds numbered in the billions. In fact, they were the most populous bird species of their era, no other bird species outnumbered them. Settlers reported seeing flocks that were miles in diameter. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Absolutely zero. The most successful bird species of the last 1,000 years and we have zero fossils to evidence it's being alive. Calculate that into your statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 246 (126286)
07-21-2004 1:22 PM


quote:
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence. A few so called 'transitionals' are nothing - you need to have one complete lineage.
quote:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10—20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Niet gevonden - Not found
Is direct observation physical enough for you?
quote:
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage
Excuse me, lying? Show me what scientist has ever said that he has the fossils of each and every generation of a lineage.
quote:
There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
And why would we expect there to be? Do you seriously think it's possible for each descendent of an animal to be fossilzed?
quote:
The so called 'transitional' forms don't prove evolution, perhaps they give evolutionists hope that they are on the right track but that is it!
When you have actually observed evolution happening, it's rather pointless hoping that you are on the right track, isn't it? Rather like accusing Cell Theory proponents to "hope that they are on the right track" after the microscope has been invented.
quote:
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
I agree, Creationism is not science, and critzing it doesn't do anything apart from exposing it as the pseudo-science that it is.
quote:
I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers.
I challenge anyone to provide me with a complete lineage of humans up until Socrates.
quote:
there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)
No, there shouldn't be. Only very few animals get fossilzed.
quote:
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence
No, the reason why evolution is accepted is because it's "arguments are sound," there is physical evidence (in the form of fossils, biogeography, Genetics etc.) and it has been OBSERVED!
quote:
The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found
Longer than the Germ Theory of Disease, Cell Theory, and Heliocentrism.

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM RRoman has replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 246 (126430)
07-22-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RRoman
07-21-2004 1:22 PM


This does not prove Evolution
quote:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10—20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species. It has NOTHING to do with the process of Evolution necessary to create a drastically different species..
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand?
The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RRoman, posted 07-21-2004 1:22 PM RRoman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2004 12:39 AM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 12:42 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 07-22-2004 6:30 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 15 by RRoman, posted 07-22-2004 10:58 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2004 11:08 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 07-22-2004 12:54 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 19 by FliesOnly, posted 07-22-2004 3:38 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 246 (126439)
07-22-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species.
Did you read the fucking abstract? Just curious, as the article does state that it went from a unicellular organism to a colonial one. That's a pretty drastic change.
As a matter of fact, not only did it change into a drastically different species, but a drastically different family, as well, as this summary of the same experiment shows:
quote:
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
How you came to the conclusion that this isn't drastic change is simply mind-boggling, assuming you even read the citation.
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage..
I don't have to have every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to see if it matches the picture on the box, STA.
Moreover the expectation that evolution must be "proved" is contrary to the scientific methodology; we're simply saying that evolution is supported by so much evidence that we've provisionally accepted it as the most likely explanation, not that it has been "proved."
"Proof" is for alcohol and algebra. It's not what we do in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 6:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 246 (126443)
07-22-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


LOL yet again
Similar "types" of horses.
Ok what is the dividing line between macro and micro (or adaptation) then?
Notice I said the line. That is not defined by given extremes like fish and reptile. Where is the dividing line at the point where they are closest together?
Reptile and mammal are separated by adaptations or macro changes? How about reptile and bird? What about chimp and man? What about a horse with 3 toes and a horse with one?
To get the line made clearer we need to get close indeed. Fox and Wolf? Wolf and Dog? Where is the line? What criteria do you use for distinguishing "types"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 246 (126514)
07-22-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Re: This does not prove Evolution
Skeptic,
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand?
With reference to post 4.
Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.
The average cladogram in Bentons study has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate.
C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!
n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodes
C(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12
There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.
5.68*10^323:1
568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of 300 cladograms enjoying a 60% corroboration with stratigraphy.
That's as close to "proof" as you get in science. Clearly the standard required by you to have every intermediate in a lineage is not necessary. That evolutionary expectations are observed in the fossil record far & above what would be expected by chance "proves" evolution.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 246 (126570)
07-22-2004 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Re: This does not prove Evolution
but it did not change into a drastically different species.
Not a drastically different species!?! Going from being unicellular to being multicellular is not a drastic change!?!
Well, I guess you accept human evolution and all other evolution then? After all, apes and humans aren't drastically different.
It has NOTHING to do with the process of Evolution necessary to create a drastically different species
Yes, it does. It's variation that was selected upon by natural selection, which eventually produced not just a new species, but a new family.
Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand?
Well, perhaps because you did not clarify, and since "lineage" means the descendents of an organism, what else is it supposed to mean when you say "complete lineage"? Tells us what you mean when you say "complete lineage" please.
The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses.
No, they are not different types of "horse." While they are related, organisms like Hyracotherium and Parahippus are not "types" of the modern genus Equus, as anyone with even remote competence in taxonomy or equine evolution will tell you.
But then again, for you they are probably the same, as you don't seem to see any difference between organism below the family level. If we gave you the skeleton of every generation of humans and chimpanzees up to the point where our ancestors separated, you would probably claim that it is not evolution, since we are both in the family Hominidae, and thus not drastically different species!

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024