|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5843 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
You ask in your post for a complete lineage with
quote:. Someone quite reasonably gave you the example of the highly detailed fossil record of horse evolution over 55 million years, and you dismiss it because the first example in the fossil sequence was too horse-like!!!. Lets go over that again, to demonstrate how unbelievable that logic is: You want to be shown an example of an animal changing over time, with small changes resulting in a very different creature. But a very well documented case, which clearly shows a 20" fruit-eating animal, with an arched back, short snout, short neck and paws on the end of its' short legs changing over time to become the horses we love and lose money on today, isn't good enough!!! You make it sound like, if you had a Hyracotherium and a modern Equus alive and side-by-side today you'd look at them and go: "Yep, there's two horses there!", as if you had just been shown a Shetland pony and a carthorse. Please, go and actually look at the evidence.
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. Er...you do actually know that the theory of evolution has been knocking around for quite a while now, don't you? And guess what, every new bit of evidence that arrives (including all those new transitional fossils that just keep on popping up and all that DNA evidence) supports the theory. Sounds like its' been pretty rigorously tested to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
I believe there is a problem with your alleged horses
quote: Show me the link to this ... I have to see it again - I don't remember seeing anything like this.. To clarify my point - most of what evolutionary theory proves is changes that occur in population that already HAD a specific trait in their genetic makeup. What I like to know is how for example did a bat evolve? The original animal did not have wings. What is the process involved here?I am not satisfied with the Random Mutation theory - it seems highly unlikely that an animal would randomly mutate a pair of wings.. Perhaps someone can show me or provide links. You should see how this is very different from a population becoming increasingly smaller - e.g smallness was beneficial.. BUT smallness was already a trait that was present - no? There are scientists (non evolutionists) who have brought this point out too - of course they have stated it more succinctly and detailed than me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To clarify my point - most of what evolutionary theory proves is changes that occur in population that already HAD a specific trait in their genetic makeup. That's only half of evolutionary theory - the half called "natural selection." Don't forget about the other half, the half that explains the source of new genetic traits - random mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
To clarify my point - most of what evolutionary theory proves is changes that occur in population that already HAD a specific trait in their genetic makeup. What I like to know is how for example did a bat evolve? The original animal did not have wings. What is the process involved here?I am not satisfied with the Random Mutation theory - it seems highly unlikely that an animal would randomly mutate a pair of wings.. Perhaps someone can show me or provide links. And you answered your own question of the first sentence with the next ones. Wings are just arms. It is very clear looking at the form of them that that could be true. Now we need to see what the genetics is (which I don't think we have yet) and we can see how they got the way they are. Here's a scientific prediction:When we learn about the genes controlling the developement of a bats arms we will find that they are like the genes of near non bat relatives and that the changes when induced will cause arm development to be bat like. They will also be changes that are well within what creationists currently call micro evolution. What is the creation "science" prediction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Show me the link to this ... I have to see it again - I don't remember seeing anything like this
Try this linkhttp://www.horsematters.net/evolution.htm or Google "horse evolution" for others - PBS has a treatment, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I am not satisfied with the Random Mutation theory - it seems highly unlikely that an animal would randomly mutate a pair of wings.. Perhaps someone can show me or provide links. Very glad you brought that up. Wings are a great place to start since there have been so many, many different solutions both in form and function to the issue of flying. In fact, IMHO, flight and wings is one of the strongest supports to show that the TOE is correct. If you look around, there are critters like the flying squirrel that are built similar to a bat, but that are more gliders. When you get to the anatomy, the bats wing, just as with a bird, are simply modfied forelimbs. So it seems they started out as forelimbs and gradually changed their function over millions of years to true wings. It's very possible that the fuction did not begin as "Let's create a wing" but to serve some other purpose, sexual display, temperature regulation or protection like layered armour. The function flight actually came about as an accidental offshoot of some other function. It was most likely one of those "Here hold my beer while I show you something" moments. But what about insects? Again, insect wings are completely unlike those of birds or mammals in form and mechanism. How might they have come about?
Here is a great article by S. J. Gould on just that subject. Hopefully it will answer your question. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
SkepticToAll,
To see the absolute best examples of relatively continuous lineages I recommend looking at the invertebrates with calcareous structures (mollusks, corals, echindoderms, bryozoa, brachiozoa, etc). All the mentioned groups have excellent and long fossil records. I try to point these examples out whenever I can because they are often skipped over in favor of horses, hominids, and the like. Which, by the way, all look pretty much the same to us invert guys. A frog and a bird have all of the same parts, you cannot make that claim with a squid, a clam, and a snail each have some unique structures and organ systems. As I mentioned some time ago in an earlier post, when I sent a detailed version of this to Hovind he responded that mollusks probably represent just another kind. If this could be true then all vertebrates could easily fit into a single kind! Two specific examples that come to mind are cephalopod and scaphopod mollusks which both are clearly derived from heliconellids (limpet-like primitive mollusks, class extinct). The transitions are like looking at a movie frame by frame (exaggeration yes, but remarkable). I am including two links that discuss these forms. The entire Paleos.com site is well worth an extensive look, the mollusk section is a gold mine. The book Fossil Invertebrates (A. H. Cheetham and A.J. Rowell, eds.) contains great photos of these transitions. Fehler 403: Nicht gefundenPalaeos: Page not found Enjoy! "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think that most of the genetics controlling development of a bats arms will turn out to be very much the same as that of other mammals. The same genes can be seen patterning the Dorso-ventral and proximo-distal axes of limbs throughout the vertebrates and there are a number of highly conserved candidates , both in sequence and function, for the anter-posterior patterning of digit identity.
Given how similar the development of avian wings is to that of mouse limbs, or humans as revealed by a number of limb dysmorphologies traced to mutations with homologues in Chick. It is unlikely that the batwing will be all that divergent developmentally. Even something as simple as losing expression of the proteins regulating cell death interdigitally would be a small but clear first step to developing a wing. As is so often the case the question is unlikely to be what genes are controlling it, we probably already know most of the major players, but what are the differences in the regulation/timing/patterning of expression of those genes that produces such a distinct limb form. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
You say again there are plenty of transitional fossils. That was the question. What are they? Saying they are there should not persuade your opponent rather showing what they are!
Remember what is being asked for are a real sequence from something to something totally different. Not manicured/not manicured horse toes. You say there is lots of evidence for evolution. Well first things first. We can deal with each piece of "evidence" in its turn Regards Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Just to get back to the original question a bit and away from wing evolution, and to complement Coragyps' link, I found a nice little site showing pictures of different fossil horses:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
You say again there are plenty of transitional fossils. That was the question. What are they? Saying they are there should not persuade your opponent rather showing what they are!
Did you not see the links he posted? The ones that list, among others, the fossils of the Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals? Remember what is being asked for are a real sequence from something to something totally different. Not manicured/not manicured horse toes.
You mean something like the links posted previously? A sequence of of horse fossils showing the transtition from the ancient Hyracotherium to the modern Equus?I also find it fascinationg how you trivialize the change from walking on a 4 toed foot to walking on a single overgrown toenail! You say there is lots of evidence for evolution
Yes, such as having observed it happening, as I have already shown in message 10 "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
deleted duplicate
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-24-2004 03:12 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Since you seem to be interested in lineages from one form to another please go here:
Message 1 And supply your defintion of a "transitional" which is what you appear to need to see in your request for lineages. You are ignoring, without adequate explanation as to why, the examples you have been given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I read what you asked.
First if this was transitional fossils then why is the posterboy for evolution horse feet. Because there is a problem with the other suff. It is only a sequence of fossils and then an interpretation is made they are related. whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case. fossils of the past can be made to have any interpretation. The overwhelming point remains that transitional fossils of major kinds of creatures do not exist. If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds. Because of the time evolutionists say has past. All that time but no transitions to shout about.Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions. And this has forced,I repeat forced, the idea of Puncuated Equiblibrium (my spelling is not ALWAYS right). This is admission they were wrong in the past about gradual change.And they were wrong in the past because they had no evidence just speculation. Just as it is now. No horse toes are not relevant when evolutionists are asked for transitional changes between great kinds of creatures. This is evidence of a problem on our opponents part.Regards Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Ok I'll go
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024