Show one complete lineage in evolution

quote:

---

I understand your point. but yes we can. You guys have not shown transitions of kind only speciation within kind.

---

So are reptiles and mammals in the same kind or not? Please answer this question. Also, what rules do you follow to determine which speciesis are in the same kind? Are they arbitrary rules that change on a whim, or are their stringent guidlines that you are following?

quote:

---

Then i explain the speciation as only the result of a large area fossilized with different communities.

---

Then why isn't aren't all of these species in the same strata? Why are species that were living at the same time sorted into different geologic layers according to body morphology? Why does this order fit perfectly into an evolutionary model that is also reflected in mammalian fetal development?

quote:

---

The reptile/mammal separation is a human interpretation and possibly not important in the natural world. The platapus for example.

---

The platypus is a perfect example. It shares both reptillian characteristics (egg laying) and mammalian characteristics (fur and mammary glands). Thank you for mentioning more evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles.Also, isn't creationism a human interpretation of the Bible?

quote:

---

Also the similiar parst does not mean that a creature is one thing or another anyway.

---

Look at the title of the thread. What are creationists asking for with such a statement? Could you please explain that to me please.

quote:

---

remember we are dealing with creatures that are not around and still error in what they were like is possible

---

Which is why science is tentative and why science does not search for absolute proof. However, science is able to prove something false, which it has done with special creation 6,000 years ago.

Robert,Your argument is that no matter how many transitionals we find it is not evidence that evolution occured. Is this correct or not?

quote:

---

You have shown no lineages of one kind to another. You have shown only common speciation.

---

What is common speciation?

quote:

---

I understand you see different jaws and see reptile into mammal. I see just one kind therapsid.

---

I don't see a Bible, I see a bunch of letters strewn on a page. Come on Rob. Look at reptiles now and what do you see? One middle ear bone, three lower jaw bones. Look at mammals today, what do you see? Three middle ear bones, one lower jaw bone. Look at mammal fetal development today and what do you see? Two bones in the lower jaw move up into the middle ear joining the single middle ear bone. What do we see in the fossil record? Over time, two lower jawbones moving up into the middle ear along with the development of numerous other mammalian charateristics. If I were a defense attorney I would want you in the jury box.

quote:

---

However still you all don't show what should be there. great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries. Not just jaws and feet.

---

Why should the fossil record contain every species that ever lived? For example, passenger pigeons numbered in the billions before man caused their extinction. We have yet to find a passenger pigeon fossil. Also, creationists claim that the preservation of complete fossils are indicative of rapid burial by a world wide flood? So the question to you is where are these millions of complete fossils buried at? Why do we keep finding one or two fossils for each species, and incomplete ones at that? Why don't we find millions upon millions of fossils due to this supposed rapid burial?

quote:

---

You don't show a complete lineage only a partial one and I say not that.

---

The other problem is that we never know if a lineage is complete. Also, intermediate species may not differ in the make up of their skeleton. That is, we can't tell if two fossil species interbred or not. What we can see in the fossil record (such as the reptile to mammal transition) is general trends of morphology that happen over time.

quote:

---

Marine animal fossil could in a few cases show from point a to point b.

---

And they do: Along with the time scale: Again, cladistics and stratigraphy match up very well (as usual). This is a complete, smooth transitional series that are ordered in the fossil record. Go here for the full story.

quote:

---

I believe the whale was first a land critter. However the fossils would not be intermediate. That is just an interpretation.

---

So what should an intermediate between a land mammal and an aquatic mammal look like? If our interpretation is incorrect, then what should the actuall intermediate look like?

quote:

---

Rea[d] your plankton thing but its just speciation and interpretation still to me.

---

Of course it is interpretation, what else are you going to do with data. Data has to be interpretated in order for it to say anything. Evolution is an interpretation that is CONSISTENT with the data while creationism is not. This is what science does, interpret data so that ALL of the data fits into a coherent picture through testable theories.Second, speciation is exactly what evolution is. Change over time and genetic isolation (ie speciation). So you are saying that you interpret this as being evolutionary change just as I do. There is nothing stopping this sort of change creating greater diversity over greater spans of time resulting in the biodiversity we see today.

quote:

---

About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood.

---

Will you please point me to the evidence that led you to this conclusion. This is quite a claim, going from a land mammal to a fully adapted aquatic mammal in just a few (5-10?) generations.

quote:

---

However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.

---

So we go from otter to blue whale in how long? 5-10 generations? And how long would they stay in that niche? One generation, or about 5 years? This isn't even enough time for an otter like environment to develop after a catastrophic world wide flood.Next, you have an otter giving birth to an aquatic mammal that weighs upwards of 300 pounds at birth. Care to explain how that happens?Don't you realize how wild and unsupported your claims are? Especially in the face of known transitional fossils for aquatic mammals that show a step by step process that never anything as drastic as what you are claiming. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-03-2004 02:46 PMThis message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-07-2004 11:27 AM

quote:

---

There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think.

---

Not one human can hold their breath as long as either a dolphin or whale. Nor can humans withstand the same depths for prolonged periods as whales can. Also, humans need freshwater while whales can drink saltwater. Sorry, but the amount of adaptation needed to adjust to a TOTALLY aquatic lifestyle requires mutation and natural selection. There is no other way around it. Also, do you see anything that resembles a whale that lives in a savanna? Of course not. It is a much larger change in physiology and morphology than you think.

quote:

---

Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret

---

But the fossils are here now as is the DNA of living organisms. Both of these point to the slow evolution of land mammals to aquatic mammals.

quote:

---

Is Robert Byers now arguing that whales micro-evolved from land animals?

---

Yep. And in only a couple hundred years.Added in edit:From Rob in mssg 225: So he is doing away with the land mammal to whale transitionals by saying that they shouldn't exist since whales evolved in only a few generations. He is claiming that the fossils are not transitionals but rather species with no links to either whale or land mammal.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-21-2004 02:18 PM

quote:

---

The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore.

---

AHH, finally, we get to the bottom of what makes Rob tick. No amount of evidence is going to make Rob go against the sheep herder's manual. Oh well, I had hoped that he would be open minded. I guess not.

quote:

---

Mangy Tiger is an evolutionist arguing that the British Royal Crown MUST not contain a single break in the lineage OR the claim is refuted.

​

Now in this thread you evos assert the opposite.

---

Where did anyone argue that a break in the Royal Line does not refute the claim?

quote:

---

The only issue is macro evolution - one species evolving into another.

---

The formation of new species has been observed.
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html