Where is the evidence for evolution?

Dr Borger said: 'Animal phyla archetypes were created sometime during the Cambrian with a MPG, then they [d]evolved into various creatures we see today.'Now, does the derived creatures have a more limited genome than the ancestral creatures?

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know that you:1.

quote:

---

adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements,

---

refuted Behe (this is Thornhill & Ussery's 'scaffolding' argument)2.

quote:

---

through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements.

---

quote:

---

So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome.

---

refuted the 'information loss' theorists.

No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me.It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase.Thanks for your response

quote:

---

, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.

---

So are you ready to put down your old creationist belief and learn something new? Like something that is actually confirmed by evidence?

You're back from temporal extinction!Welcome back, furry proboscidean mate.

Dr Borger,Would one pair of fore wings and one pair of hind wings constitute an original MPG?Microraptor gui the four-winged bird unearthed earlier this year showed such characteristics. IMO I don't buy the dino>bird scenario, I prefer the stem reptile>bird transition. But you would claim that birds are excluded from reptile MPGs.Which means (If I may extrapolate it as such), all birds, including Archaeopteryx and those dragon birds, are variation and degeneration from an original bird MPG.Which means, one MPG = one class (in Aves,)Which made me check your earlier claims, namely one MPG = one species (human vs chimp), one MPG = one phylum (arthropods), one MPG = one order (cetaceans vs Ambulocetus), one MPG = one family (Old World monkeys vs New World monkeys)...Personally I'd pick the suggestion of one MPG = one animal phylum (don't know how it would apply to other groups of life) since I am skeptical about the existence of interphylum transitional forms. The gap between phyla is great and IMO each deserved its own MPG (or archetype). But that would cancel all other designations, and allow evolution with natural selection to account for the development within a phylum, such as evolution of termites from cockroaches, tetrapods from fish, whales from primitive ungulates, birds from reptiles, and, what else, ancient apes to man.What do you think? I think it's not a hasty extrapolation of microbe to man. It's just an extrapolation from archetypal ancetral vertebrate to man