evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Would you please quote the precise part that says this?

quote:

---

The lobes give the fish a reptile like appearance and give the idea that the fish might actually be able to walk on its fins. These morphological features lead many scientists to believe the coelacanth lineage was the direct link to tetrapods, but recent molecular evidence suggests that lung fish might be more closely related to tetrapods.

---

"Wishful thinking? "I'd say it was a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence of the time. The lobe fins are more like legs than the fins of the ray finned fish, the subsequent links to the tetrapod have legs that are of a simliar form. Determining whether this is a "direct link" or a cousin of the actually tetrapod line isn't possible without the DNA information.With the new information the understanding of tetrapod evolution is modified. How is this "wishful thinking". It is based on what is known at the time, it is not unreasonable and it isn't far off from the current thinking. Unlike ideas that are based on no evidence this is actualy thinking rather than just wishing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2005 18:50 AM

Of course, there can be errors because of individual biases and the need to publish.That is exactly why the process demands the scrutiny of others and the need for replication in important cases.If you think that a careful consideration has been overriden then please give your detailed analysis of where this has occured. This, well done, is publishable in it's own right.However there seems to be a lot of willingness to make such charges and little to zero willingness to support such charges.

And how did that contribute to the issue exactly? And he knew that he needed evidence to support what he believed to be the case. He found out that it wasn't as he thought.It is not just another fish. Not by a long-shot.

Of course, you will. And nothing constructive is achieved because you and about 95% of the "creos" that drop in here aren't willing to actually learn anything about the subjects at hand. Of course, that doesn't stop them from deciding that everything being taught about modern science is wrong.When asked to actually back up their assertions it suddenly becomes just too much effort.

This shows a very common misconception. At all stages most organisms are the same species as their parents, siblings and children. (Some recent examples in some plants are an example of an exception) Evolutionary theory (as per Darwin) would have said all organisms and it appears to be so close to all that we could really keep saying that.(borrowed from Dawkins)
That means that if you take an animal and transport it back `1,000 years it will be able to breed with the ancestors of that time. If you then pick up an individual from that 1,000 year ago time and take that one back another 1,000 years it will still be able to breed with it's ancestors. If you then pick up one from that 2,000 year ago time frame and take it back yet another 1,000 years it will still be able to breed back there.If you keep doing this it will keep working. If you took a human back 1,000 years it would work. A human from 1,000 CE would breed with someone from 1 CE. Someone from 1CE would breed with someone from 1,000 BCE.Someone from 101,000 years BCE would breed with someone from 102,000 years BCE and so on. However, somewhere in there you would find that someone from TODAY would NOT breed with that person of that long ago time. There would be a difference of species between us and them. However, where did the line get crossed? There is no line.The line between species in both space (ring species) and time (almost all others) is not a sharp line.ABEBTW (sort of relevant)
This paper describes how common insertion/deletion events are in humans. These are 1,000's to millions of base pairs long and appear to be rather common.
Nature - Not FoundThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 11:24 AM

You might note that even a century ago this fraud was questioned. And long before it was proven a fraud it was understood to have something wrong about it since subsequent finds didn't support what might have been concluded from it.The degree of scrutiny has tightened up a lot in a century but it has always been there. Always a LOT more than that used by creation "scientists" today.

There have been many changes observed over time. Some transitions are only caught in a few snapshots of major steps. However others as in trilobites, various clam like beasties and nautaloids show an many, many millions of years rather detailed sequences of evolution.The reason for this difference should be obvious. Some lineages are of animals that have populations in perhaps the low numbers of millions over a continent (certainly not more than a few per sq km). Others like the trilobite etc are very numerous, have parts which fossilze reasonably easily and live in an environment conducive to fossilization. Heck some of them live already buried. There is one point that needs to be clarified :"changes in species"What do you mean by that? What do you mean by "abrupt". There is a steady sequence of fossils over several millions of years. The ones nearer today are more human like and the ones further away less human like as you would expect.In addtion, some human characteristics show a nice, if bumpy, directional change toward current values (skull capacity being a good one).Within our lineage the older forms like erectus are more like sapiens (but still erectus)when you get closer in time to us and less like as you get further away. The older forms of sapiens have characteristics which blur into erectus's and newer ones are finally, a few 10,000's of years ago, fully modern.There is nothing that I would call "abrupt" about it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2005 00:34 AM

Please describe what "an intermediate form between species" would look like. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.Also, giving my best guess as to what it might be, I don't see that the fossil record would be the place to look. The species level change can be very, very small indeed. In fact, with living animals it is possible to have living species that we can not tell apart without very careful examination. How much harder would it be with fossils alone?

I don't know PS, when he says "...time as horses" does he mean modern Equus where he says "horses"?In which case, your explanation doesn't touch the issue.

It is very clear that you are not using the biological definition of species. Since you are choosing to construct your own definition will you please specify what that is so we may continue the discussion?Without the terms being clear the sentences being posted can not possibly make sense to both sides.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2005 16:26 AM