evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

quote:

---

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them." *David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.

---

And on the very next page, Kitts writes "The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case."Kitts then procedes to explain why this does not falsify evolution, including a discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium.Kitts only says that there are lack of transitionals "between species". These transitional forms are going to be very few in number and be limited to a small range. The chances of these individuals fossilizing is very low, and the chances of us finding that fossil are even lower. The modes of speciation explain why we see very few of these transitional forms, and it also explains why we see a smooth transition of larger changes, such as the page on horse evolution which you seemed to have ignored.

And on page 26, Raup writes xevolutionist, do you still agree with Raup? Raup was asking a very simple question, "can natural selection cause the changes we see in the fossil record". The answer is NO, speciation causes the changes we see in the fossil record, which explains why very few transitions between species are seen.

quote:

---

If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.

---

What would a real horse ancestor look like, if these aren't it?

quote:

---

Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime?

---

He bemoaned that we there weren't more. Archaeopteryx, the transition between reptile and bird, was found in Darwin's lifetime.

quote:

---

Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.

---

With the discovery of DNA, the genetic material involved in heredity, our views of what a species is had to change. A species is a group of isolated DNA, a population that only breeds within itself. It is not a question of if they CAN interbreed, but if they DO interbreed. Even if two species are interfertile (ie they can produce fertile offspring) they are still considered separate species if they DON'T interbreed. Species and speciation is about isolating genes to one gene pool, not differences in morphology.Species has been defined in this fashion because of mutation. If two gene pools are isolated from one another different mutations will accumulate in the different gene pools leading to different morphology overtime. This is why speciation is the root cause of the changes seen in the fossil record, it isolates mutations away from each other resulting in different morphological outcomes.

quote:

---

Different morphological outcomes that can never be more complex than the ancestors. Observed mutations always impact negatively. There is a limit to the results you can obtain from selective breeding.

---

If I look at the feet of the horse lineage I see two things. I see the dissapearance of three phalanges and the appearance of a hoof. So while the horse lost toes it gained a more complex hoof. The evolution of the horse shows that you are wrong.As to selective breeding, how long has man bred animals and plants? Maybe 5-8 thousand years? This is not enough time for mutations to produce completely new featurs to be selected for. Remember, evolution is MUTATION and selection. Man is only able to do one of those, select. Man is not able, until very recently with genetic manipulation, to produce new features to select from. Selective breeding, or artificial selection, over such a short span can not be used to extrapolate to evolutionary changes that have spanned millions of years.

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that using quotes was against the guidelines. I didn't intend to include the material preceeding the quotes. I am one person attempting to respond to several in the limited time I have for this intellectual exercise. Please forgive me.

---

Quotes are only evidence of someone elses opinions. What we want is objective evidence, the evidence that these people have based their opinion on.

quote:

---

Humorous, isn't it, that objective evidence is what I was looking for when I first joined this discussion? It seems we don't always get what we want.

---

We did supply it, the fossils comprising the horse lineage. What did you say in response?--Transitionals can't exist because evolution is false.
--I won't tell you what a transitional would look like because they can't exist.
--That isn't a new species, it is some other name that doesn't entail supporting evolution.We presented it, you ran away from it.If that horse lineage does not support evolution, then explain why. Also supply what the horse lineage should look like. In addition, explain why we see these horses in different layers, in a chronological order.You have also ducked the DNA evidence. Do you want to start a discussion of the DNA evidence? I warn you, the DNA evidence is even more strongly in support of evidence than the fossil record.PS: Just out of curiosity. How can you call yourself an ex-evolutionist if you never knew what it stated nor the evidence that supports it?