Show one complete lineage in evolution

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. 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.

In the case of asexually reproducing organisms, it's possible that the Biological Species concept isn't appropriate.But for sexual species, the BSC is more than appropriate, and there's certainly nothing vague about "a reproducive community."The fact that it's often hard, however, to pin down exactly where one species ends and another starts is exactly what we would expect if evolution was true. No, the rule is very clear and very general - "did reproducive isolation occur?" Had their geographical isolation proceeded for much, much longer than it did, we might very well say that they were different species.You need to stop thinking of species in the Platonic way - where individuals are variations of some abstract species template - and percieve the reality - what we think of as "species" are really more-or-less discreet gene pools. It's certainly full of fallacious reasoning, if that's what you mean. I noted a number of instances where they claimed no new species was formed because there was no major adaptive mutation.The problem is, that's not how evolution says new species form. Did reproductive isolation occur in each of those cases? Indeed it did. Therefore each of those is, in fact, a speciation event.

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.

Ok, but what would that fossil record look like besides a temporally-organized sequence of discreet but continuous morphologies? In other words, the reason that we're so sure that we have a fossil record of evolutionary change is because the fossils are arranged exactly how we would expect if our hypotheses about genetic ancestry of organisms were correct.If you want to see fossils evolving, how on earth would that make sense? Fossils are dead, RB. They don't change. Not when they're found already organized in almost precisely the way we would expect if our proposed genetic lineages were correct. There's only one interpretation of that degree of convergence between stratiography and cladistics - that both straiography and cladistics are describing the same sequence; the evolutionary ancestry of Earth's species. They do, though. Almost every species is a transitional form, just like you're the transitional form between the unique morphology of your parents and that of your children. Well, the only thing they've "admitted" is how poorly people like you understand Punctuated Equilibrium:

quote:

---

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

---

from Punctuated EquilibriaPunctuated equilibrium is not a theory based on the gaps in the fossil record; it's based on the positive evidence collected from a number of studies in population genetics. That it happens to explain why there are so many transitional fossils between major taxa but so few at the inter-species level is just a side benefit.

Well, you would be. The most obvious difference is that shark tails are vertical in orientation, like fish; while cetacean tails are of horizontal orientation.Cetacean tails are bilaterally symmetrical; shark tails are not.

That would be a false statement which I had already refuted in my post. It's against the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here. Please go back and address my post if you wish to continue making this claim. Right, which is how we know that there's no "interpretation" of the data involved - the data clearly led Darwin to the conclusion of evolution, not the other way around.But, Darwin didn't have all the data. The new data we've found since Darwin's time confirms predictions made by his theory.You might contrast Darwin's method with what creationists do - Darwin examined the data and dervied a testable conclusion. Creationists start with an untestable conclusion and cherry-pick the data to fit.Oh, and you still didn't answer my question - if evolution were true, how would the fossil record be different from what we have; a record of the remains of species organized by time?

I observe evolution about as often as I observe gravity, so you're pretty wrong about this.Unless you're choosing not to see all the evolutiong going on.. Could you go to pubmed.org, search for any scientific paper on evolution, and point out the anti-christian content please?Moreover how can it be "anti-christian" when evolution is affirmed by so many of the major Christian denominations? Do you really think the Catholics are all secret atheists or something?

I'm sorry, but I refuted this claim. It's in violation of the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here. If you're thinking that PE and gradualism are mutually exclusive, then your thinking is wrong.

Actually, it wouldn't. if fossilization were so common that entire, complete lineages were likely to be preserved - if there were an abundance of them for every species - then it would probably be evidence against evolutionary timescales, not evidence for the theory.You're asking for something that the reality of fossilization makes unlikely. That said, a number of lineages have apparently been presented to you, only to have them dismissed by you. So what, exactly, would you accept as a complete lineage?

Here's 29 evidences for macro-evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentNo, this has happened hundreds of times under observations, and countless billions of times throughout the history of life. After all, why wouldn't it? All it takes is reproductive isolation to form new species.But you don't have to take my word for it: Observed Instances of SpeciationNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlSkeletal development has nothing to do with new species. Skeletons can change within species.You only get a new species when reproductive isolation occurs. New species have nothing to do with morphological change; significant morphological change can occur within species. Certainly not as you've defined it, no.Nonetheless, all species past and present are the decendants of a common ancestor. This is the conclusion of a vast weight of evidence and is simply not refutable from what we know now.

No classification is the way it is in the real world, because all classifications are artifical groupings.Even species, when you think about it. To an organism, there's the individuals around them that they could mate with, and then there's everything else they can't. That's all the classification that exists in the natural world; trying to determine if the organism could mate with another individual over the next hill is artifical, human classification again."Reptile" and "mammal" are just words we use for artifical, arbitrary groupings of animals; we might base those groupings on an arbitrary selection of physical characteristics but there's nothing inherently "mammal" or "reptile" or whatever about any organism.