On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Yes and no. The problem is that you have not defined "distinct" sufficiently to say, and this leaves it open for subjective interpretation.In one very real sense each existing species population is distinct from their parent population and from their offspring population - each group has different hereditary traits ... but the difference may not be that significant in terms of natural selection, or sufficient to satisfy your impression of what is a "distinct" difference.What you have is a constant succession of individual organisms within a population, so the mix is constantly changing, just as the cells in your body are constantly changing as new cells replace old, worn out ones, or ones that are damaged. Over time the accumulated changes become more and more "distinct" between the beginning population and the most recent population.During your lifetime your body goes through a succession of stages as you grow from conception to birth to childhood to adult to old geezer (like me), and at every stage you think of your body as being complete. Some stages occur rapidly and some stages occur slowely, but there is never a time when you are not in transition from one stage to another.None of these stages occur all at once, or only go through a single transitional phase, but they occur over time while the changes accumulate, and one day you wake up and say "dang, I'm OLD, dad-burn-it!"If you are lucky (or have the right combination of beneficial hereditary traits) you will live a long time, possibly giving birth to many other species individuals. This would only be true if you expected ALL the transition from one "distinct (to you) group" to another "distinct (to you) group" to occur within ONE contemporary population.The more difference you require for one group to be distinctive (to you) from another, the more generations you should expect the transitional period to cover, with the transition spread out over many stages of growth and succession of individual cells individuals, just as you don't expect the growth from infant to ancient to occur overnight.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Terv777,I've posted a more complete reply on Message 45.This thread is about transitional species, and transitional species are those that show intermediate forms between ancestor populations and modern population (or more modern than the ancestor population).All we can say about modern species is that they are continuing to evolve, and as such they are intermediate in form between the ancestor population and the theoretical future populations.In this regard the Galapagos Finches show a separation into diverse populations with different traits from their ancestor population. Because of reproductive isolation that minimizes gene transfer (in spite of occasional hybrids), these populations are free to evolve independently of the other populations. Over time that will mean that they will develop further differences between the populations.That's how transitions happen over time, rather than in sudden changes into different whole types of species. They do, it just takes more than one speciation event to make such a significant change.The transition from reptile to mammal took millions of years and many speciation events, speciation events that are grouped into different genera for the sake of clarity (taxonomy above speciation being an arbitrary human description).http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

quote:

---

The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished.

---

You will see many many different species in the lineage between reptile and mammal, including ones that have two jaw joints, intermediate between the three-bone reptile jaw attached to the ear and the single-bone mammal jaw with the earbones formed from the previous reptile jaw bones no longer used in the jaw.If you want to explore all these different species in this transition, an excellent resource is:Palaeos: Page not foundIt is hyperlinked so you can move up and down in the fossil record and even work your way forward to modern mammals. Totally irrelevant. Curiously, evolution does not depend on Darwin, nor is it affected by his personal faith or what changes he made in his life.Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed to happen, continuously, in all known life forms. This fact does not depend on any person or who or what they were. Interestingly, that is how science works.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey Dr A, Nine men, a dinner club, yeah, that's dangerous. It seems that Darwin was not a member, not included in any of the meetings, and that they were more influenced by his book than he was by their publications.Looks like more creationist rabble-rousing and trying to discredit Darwin rather than to deal with the theory and the evidence for that theory.This is known as the ad hominem logical fallacy, the usual resort of people who have no actual argument, but don't like the evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Trev777, Curiously, evolution says that all changes occur within species. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Those populations are pools of breeding members of a species. Interestingly, this is false, but not because of some other mechanism than evolution, but because as we go back in time we see changes within the breeding populations such that those species are not classified as dogs or elephants. Go back far enough and you find a common ancestor to dogs and elephants, so either dogs are elephants or your statement is false. When we look at the fossils of that common ancestor we see that it is neither dog nor elephant.If you want to discuss this issue further see the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread. There are. In fact there are millions upon millions of fossils of intermediate forms. In fact there are no fossils that are NOT of intermediate forms. Can you point out the point in this lineage where there is any break in the transition between intermediate forms: Keyword: extrapolate. All such extrapolations are doubtful, no matter how carefully done, especially when you get outside the range of data represented by the minimim less 1/2 the data range, to the maximum plus 1/2 the data range. IE - if you have a thousand years of data you should not extrapolate over more than two thousand years.Another problem with extrapolations is that they are based on assumptions: if your assumption is wrong the result is worthless.Finally, extrapolations are mathematical models. Strangely, no mathematical is capable of altering reality in any way, and what this means is that where the mathematical model and reality disagree it is the model that is wrong. Or there could be a mechanism that works constantly, continuously whittling away at the population: something like starvation and disease. Population size is a constantly changing balance between births and deaths, and so far nobody has been able to eliminate death from the equation. In primitive and ancient societies, infant mortality alone, was up to 50% - many times higher than in our modern society.There is also the problem of providing sustenance for the populations in question - populations are limited by the minimum necessary resource, whether food, water, or protection from elements, predators and diseases. Interestingly, this limitation of resources necessary to life is what drives natural selection and causes evolution to occur in all populations. Except that what you describe is not based on evolution or science at all, instead it is a common, often refuted, creationist PRATT:CB620: Population growth

quote:

---

Claim CB620:
A reasonable assumption of population growth rate (0.5 percent) fits with a population that began with two people about 4000 years ago, not with a human history of millions of years.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 167-169.

​

The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 (1.005)^{^N}

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.

---

As you see, a strict mathematical model like this is ridiculous. And - because it is contradicted by the actual evidence of reality (in addition to the mathematically ridiculous result) - we can easily discard this as another false idea, and not a scientific postulation nor any indication of reality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Trev777 Do you have any scientific evidence of this? So then you must have scientific evidence of your claim about mutations Message 86
So, again, then you must have scientific evidedence of your claim about mutations. Off topic - you need to stick to transitional species. As a note, though, I wonder if you have read his latest book? In that book he concludes that evolution is inevitable, a product of design of the universe.http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm
enton]-->Google books link -->enton">Google books link< !--UE-->Perhaps if you too follow where the science leads to "proove (SIC) His existence" then you will come to a similar conclusion. Also off-topic, but here's a hint: with that population growth rate the population today (2009) should be 22,128,561,537 people, that's 22 billion. Current world population is 6,8 billion, so this growth rate is too high already. The World Factbook

quote:

---

Population: 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.)

---

Here's another hint: do the math yourself with just 0.6% per annum growth. Here's the formula for this growth rate: Where N is the number of years and P(N) is the total world population at year N.Check my numbers: I get 15 people to build the pyramids, 1,785 for the exodus, 573,741 world population for Xerxes' army, ... and a current world population of 1,689,226,730,286 -- 1.7 TRILLION people.Tell me what you get eh?Meanwhile, you have made no response to several comments regarding your assertion about transitional species or about the common ancestor to dogs and elephants.Perhaps you realize that you are as vastly wrong about evolution as you are about world population growth.Or you realize you just don't have any answers and are trying to dodge off onto other topics a la Galloping Gish the "Gazelle" of Creationists.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : - Edited by RAZD, : ;

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, Trev777. Which is an appeal to authority, a common logical fallacy. Your quote is of one persons opinion, and curiously it, like your opinion, is useless in controlling reality. Life happens. It appears that you did not learn your lesson about mathematical models from the disaster of your population model's internal self-destruction.The issue is not how many mutations are deleterious, or how often they occur: somewhere between 75% and 99% (depending on medical and nutritional conditions where you live) of human conceptions fail to make it to the swaddling cloth. Obviously a lot of mutations end up killing many many organisms. Also obviously, this has not slowed down the population growth of humans (even if we haven't reached 1.7 trillion yet). Why? Because successful phenotypes live a long and (sexually) productive life, while these unsuccessful phenotypes are eliminated early enough to allow the parents to attempt reproduction again, almost immediately following the previous failure/s.So once again your mathematical model fails to model reality - what math are you going to try next? The argument from improbability? Let me save you some time: see thread the old improbable probability problem.Now let's consider your mathematical argument about the high distribution of mutations that make an organism different from the parent. Then we will note (as has been mentioned before) that the difference is neither good nor bad, higher nor lower, improved nor degraded, just different from the parent. What tests the effectiveness of the mutation is how it affects the individuals ability to survive and reproduce.We'll consider two populations of a species living in neighboring ecosystems, divided by geological formations (rivers, hills, etc) such that mingling of the two populations is rare compared to the mingling (reproduction) within each population.We'll consider that one population is well suited to it's ecosystem, but that the main food source is poorly distributed in the second. There is enough for the population to survive it's initial colonization of the ecosystem from the other one, but it limits the population growth in that second ecosystem.We'll consider that there is another food source that is rare in the first ecosystem but dominant in the second, and that the organisms are adapted to be able to eat it with marginal success.Then we'll consider that - with all those mutations that are occurring - one mutation makes an organism in the second population worse at eating the primary food source, but better at eating this secondary food source.In the first population, this would be a deleterious mutation, yes? But in the second population it is a beneficial mutation, as now it can benefit from a dominant food source. The improved survival of this individual with this mutation should ensure a long and (re)productive life, yes? As such it will pass the mutation on to offspring that will also be successful at using the dominant food supply in the second ecosystem.These organisms are transitional organisms, developing away from the ancestral population.Thus the preponderance of semi-deleterious mutations within a population can result in the formation of secondary populations that are better adapted to different ecosystems from their ancestors, and the mutations actually drive the transition of the second population to be different from the parent one.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Trev777 Mutations change the "information" - there is no "improove"(SIC) involved. That would be a mutation that obviously adds "information" in the way that 1 + 1 adds information. The probability is that the mutations would be different, and what would be the difference between that and one mutation? It would already be more complex due to the duplication. Seeing as that is NOT what natural selection, as used in the science of evolution says happens, I congratulate you on showing that a false (straw man) version is impossible. (clap clap clap). Can you point to one thing in a bat wing that is not present in your arm? A bone, a muscle, skin, ligaments, blood vessels, any element, any feature? Nope. See how assertion based on opinion works?Now consider the flying squirrel as a transitional stage between a small shrew like tree living insectivore and a bat -- what is statistically impossible about a flying squirrel? Curiously, nothing is "statistically impossible" -- if it's impossible, then statistics has nothing to do with it, and if it's statistical it's not impossible. And anything in between, and even more, up to and including duplication of the entire genome (see polyploidy). Interestingly, the complexity of the system has no bearing on whether the mutation adds or deletes "information" from the system.Curiously, one type of mutation can duplicate a section of DNA, while another type of mutation can delete a section of DNA, thus it is entirely possible that a second mutation would delete a previously duplicated section and we end up at the starting point. Now, tell me, how does each involve loss of information?Fascinatingly, we have samples of this actually occurring:Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

quote:

---

Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness
Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.

---

And it is not just ONE such instance, but several. See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some gained wings (red). And diversified.

And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.

And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

So again, how does each of these mutations involve loss of information? So are the walkingsticks with wings a "deteriorated" version of walkingsticks without wings, or are the walkingsticks without wings a "deteriorated" version of walkingsticks with wings ... and what about the one that was\wasn't\was winged? Except, of course, when it leads to speciation instead, where the old species no longer exists because it has been modified into a new species by these mutations.Here's a question for you to consider: if species only dwindle and die out, where do the new species come from? Unless, of course, the gene is dominant or you get a duplication of the mutated gene from both parents (see sickle-cell anemia)No, the reason they don't show up that often is because they are rare. Meanwhile we have many more mutations that are neutral (such as in eye color) and some that are even beneficial (giving immunity to diseases and making the person less likely to have heart failure). Strangely, intelligence has nothing to do with it, just the higher probability of having a bad gene duplicated than occurs in the rest of the population. Curiously, if both parents did not carry such bad genes, but did carry preventative genes it would act to reinforce those beneficial ones in the offspring. Nope. We have between 95% and 98% similar genes with chimpanzees (depending on how you count it) now that we DO know the whole DNA sequence of both species, so very little would need to be changed. Even less would be needed to make a half-way hominid. Or, being blind to future consequences, it would produce an increasingly more fit organism for the environment and the survival+reproductive ecology it lives in, because the ones that are better able to survive and breed, curiously, are the ones who end up surviving and breeding. You won't get suspended for mentioning maths, you will get suspended for making unsupported assertions and posting a lot of false information with no regard to fact and reality.Notice that, just as your mathematical assertions were shown to be drastically wrong, almost every statement you made in your post is (a) unsupported by evidence and (b) wrong.Does this make you wonder at all about your sources of information? Do you get the feeling you are in the gunfight at the OK corral and they gave you a cap pistol? If it doesn't make you question your sources-- why not? Is it really critical thinking to question evolution but to give creationist propaganda a pass?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Trev777 I have not seen any evidence that you are right, in fact I have not seen any evidence at all from you: all you have presented so far is assertion, which is opinion, which is worthless as any kind of evidence, no matter how you try to redefine the word.Curiously, I can not only conclude that your assertions are wrong, the walkingsticks PROVE that your opinion is wrong, and it has nothing to do with bias, but logic and fact. This also means that your bias is also irrelevant: bias cannot change fact into fiction. Nice try, but your assertion was that mutations always result in a loss of information ... here's what you said: And there is not a word about "kinds" - not anywhere in your post.Your assertion of each mutation involving a loss of information is invalid (or irrelevant, depending on what you mean by "information").The +wing mutation, then the -wing mutation, then the +wing mutation means that if one = loss of information, then the other = gain of information. x+1<>x-1 unless x=0 ("x" meaning "information" and x=0 meaning it is irrelevant to evolution, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation).Curiously, your assertion just before that now falsified one, is also falsified by the same evidence: Seeing as it appears to be pretty easy to change from wing to no-wing to wing versions, the conclusion of a "hugh amount of genetic information," is also untenable.Instead of admitting (again) that you are wrong (again), you have tried to pretend that you are talking about something else. This is dishonest. It is also known as the creationist game of "moving the goal-posts" -- trying to change the topic everytime your opinion is demonstrated to be false or ridiculous (like the population mathematics).Do you learn from mistakes? Or do you think that faith makes you impervious to mistakes? What you fail to see is that it is possible to be unbiased, but to use the evidence to understand what reality says is true. Multiple pieces of evidence from multiple venues demonstrates over and over that if "information" (whatever you mean by it) is lost by one mutation, that "information" (by the same meaning, whatever it is) is gained by other mutations. This is not my opinion, which can be biased, it is what objective evidence of reality says - and evidence cannot be biased. It also vanishes if you abandon the argument from incredulity and look at the evidence. Did you notice that they don't say anywhere in the article that evolution was not involved? Have you read the article? What do you think it says? New Scientist Article
Copy of full article

quote:

---

These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.

​

While nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity - humans are indisputably more complicated than amoebas - recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so, then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong," says Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.

​

The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair. However, the latest evidence suggests that the extent of loss might have been seriously underestimated. Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss - at every level, from genes and types of cells to whole anatomical features and life stages - is the key to understanding evolution and the relatedness of living things.

---

I love newsy articles trying to be scientific. Did you notice that they contradict themselves? That's what happens when hyperbole gets out of hand."The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex,..." VS "The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair."What you see is the disproof of a straw man -- evolution has never claimed to be only a gradualist tree.Now we add quote mining to the list of logical fallacies you have employed -- and ANOTHER attempt to move the discussion away from your failure to talk about transitional fossils.Did you notice that the article STILL talks about transitions from early forms of animals to later forms of animals, and that totally absent from the discussion is any mention of anything like a saltation of new species.Do you really think this article makes a difference? Does it disprove evolution? Does it invalidate the concept of transitional species?If not then what purpose is served by listing it? Curiously, what this simple fact demonstrates is the retention of ancestral traits during developmental stages of growth in humans, and it is very strong evidence of common ancestry with primates: we start with a primate larynx, not a vocalizing one. If human ancestors had not inherited the larynx of primates, by being primates, but from a totally independent lineage that is vocal, this retention to avoid choking should not be necessary. Really?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi spradling100164, and welcome to the fray. Woot! Now all we need to do is get some of that fossil bone to Schweitzer's lab to see if they can find some primate soft tissue ... and see whether this can confirm the primate vs lemur question?Dinosaur Shocker | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years? - 47 million should be a snap eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi pandion They have fur, so the degree of preservation is high, that's why I'm positing possible soft tissues available for further analysis. While DNA may not be possible, the existence of certain types of proteins could help define lineages Which may be confirmed by finding proteins common to both but not common between - hence transitional.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Percy, Actually we do. In one toe the nail has grown into the hoof and the intermediate bones to the ankle have become elongated and thickened to support the weight of the horse on the one toe. The other toes have become vestigial or disappeared, but they are still between the toe end and the ankle.I use this reference due to the sheer irony of it:
http://www.bible.ca/...-fraud-horse-fetal-vestigial-toes.gif

quote:

---

Evolutionist argument: This diagram shows the fetal development of a horse foot. (a) is the foot at 6 weeks. Note, there are three toes. (b) is the foot at 8 weeks. The middle toe now dominates. (c) is the foot at 5 months. The middle toe is now the hoof. So, modern horses have vestigial extra toes, which are too small to be easily noticed.

​

Evolutionist argument rebutted: These structures are not vestigial but perform a critical function of assisting the horse to run with balance. These additional side structures not only reinforce the leg for strength, but aid in balance. Think of them as laminates that strengthen the leg in the same way the layers of plywood makes it stronger than unlamintated wood. The three sections are fused together in such a way as to resist breaking and increase torsion strength of the leg of the horse. Without such, the horse would break its leg more often.

---

Of course that "critical function" was not the original support function of the toes, so yes they are vestigial, and this secondary adapted function is why they have not disappeared.Amusingly you can see that the fetus has three toes (of the original five, two having disappeared in earlier evolutionary stages (that are easily linked to this by fossils) with the central one elongated slightly more than the other two) forming a three toed foot, and that these toes become reduced and redirected during development until the two side ones become splints in the final foot.Here's another resource:

quote:

---

To illustrate how the horse foot changed through time, a human hand can be used for comparison.
Note how the distance of the wrist bones from the ground changes.

​

​

5 toes (ancestral mammals) ​

4 toes on ground (eohippus stage) ​

4 toes, 3 toes on ground, 1 raised above (Epihippus stage) ​

3 toes (Mesohippus stage) ​

1 toe (Equus stage) ​

---

The added height gained by this adaptation increases the overall leg length, thus giving the horse better running legs, while still allowing it to fold up small to jump over obstacles.And another:
Page not found - Suite 101

quote:

---

If you were trying to convince someone of the theory of evolution, the horse would be a great example to use. Fossil remains of prehistoric horses provide one of the best documented examples of the evolutionary changes of an animal species. And if the fossil remains are not convincing enough, we can look at the anatomy of the modern horse and find possible evidence that the horse once had toes.
...
It is the three toes of the horse’s ancestors Mesohippus and Miohippus (which existed about 25-40 million years ago) that are most universally acknowledged in the anatomy of modern horse. Between the knee and fetlock joint (equivalent to your ankle) is the cannon bone. On either side of the cannon bone hang two useless bones that are called the splint bones. They are frequently injured and the resulting hard lump is called a splint. We will discuss splints more in future articles on leg and hoof problems. It is generally accepted that these bones are what remains of the two smaller toes of Mesohippus. Those of us who have had deal with horses popping splints wish evolution would hurry up and get rid of them all together.

---

Looks like that "Evolutionist argument rebutted" fall flat on it's face. They are vestigial rather than totally gone because they now serve a secondary function, and that poorly, because it is not their original purpose. This is what vestigial means.The splints are vestigial toes that serve no support function - their original function - for the modern horse. And the horse "splint" toes.Enjoy.ps -- Scientific Evidence for Creation Home page
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm-- another creationist site to add to the creationist fraud thread. So many fallacies on one page.Edited by RAZD, : added for clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Bluejay My understanding is that selection for echolocation produced similar modifications to the protein.This would be similar to convergent evolution of skin flaps in sugar gliders and flying squirrels, just at a molecular level.My bet is that selection on the protein has to do with improved ability to hear high frequencies, where echolocation works best.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)