On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

So is that what a "kind" is, an order. Are we evos finally getting a straight answer from a creo? if it is then dogs & cats are the same kind, and humans and lemurs are the same kind.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This would be valid had you been discussing theology, but you're discussing science, and your "evidence" is simply your take on the evidence, and not the consensus amoungst scientist.There is no "bias" in which scientist take a creationst stand point versus an evolutionary stand point.There is simply evidence, collected by scientist, studied by scientist and given to us to learn from.There are no a priori beliefs in science, there is just "follow the evidence where it takes you". However, first you must be educated enough in the specifc fields to be able to "follow the evidence".If not you wind up with, well, this following quote from you... And what "kind" would that be, specifically?Arthropoda?
Insecta?
Pterygota?
Neoptera?
Exopterygota?
Phasmatodea?Please be specific so we can know where you "draw the line" at "kind". Yes, and Chris Angel would actually have talent if you believe magic is real. Not the point. You're asking for an abandonment of an observed phenomenon, plus a rejection of mountains of experimental data, just to satisfy your incredulous position.This is simply not going to happen.A couple of quote mines don't prove anything. RAZD has given you an enormous amount of information for you to simply ignore his points and continue to drive with yours. In the spirit of good debating at least try to counter his points. Or simply admit that you are way out of your realm.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Trev - I can see you carry on the grand old creo tradition of quote mining. The New Scientist article you quote from (here: Page not found | Australian Academy of Science) simply isn't saying what I think you are trying to imply.When the author says "rethink the process of evolution" they mean incorporating a modern understanding of homologies and convergent traits (through molecular research) into phylogeny. They are not saying the theory of common descent is in error or is being questioned.Personally I had some issues with the article, I think the writer somewhat overstated the issues that are being raised. This is all to common in pop-science writing.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

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 Trev777,This is going to be difficult to explain in a way that you will find reasonable, but the short of it is that that New Scientist article (Evolution: hacking back the tree of life) is just plain way over the top in what it says about complexity trends, specifically: Increasing complexity has never been a rule within evolutionary biology. I have no idea why the article's author, Laura Spinney, would say such or thing, or why the editors let it through. There may be contexts in which increasing complexity is expected, but she doesn't qualify what she says in any way, and so in the way that she states it she is just plain wrong.There are plenty of examples of diminishing complexity, and Spinney even mentions some, like the lost legs of snakes and whales. The example I usually use is cave fish who have lost their eyes, and there are many other examples. In fact, there are so many examples of diminishing complexity that no one familiar with evolution would ever make the mistake of claiming that increasing complexity is a rule.Early in the article Spinney quotes Detlev Arendt: Maybe this is what led Spinney astray. Not having access to the whole conversation it is difficult to tell why Arendt would have phrased things in this way, but as others have already said, the article is actually about something we've known about for a long time, that the tree of life as originally constructed based upon outer appearance often has to be revised in light of genetic information. The hippo being more closely related to whales instead of pigs was one example in the article.The significant new information that is the reason for the article is that some of the genetics-driven revisions to the tree of life are turning out to be surprisingly larger than originally expected.There's only one overriding rule in evolutionary biology, and it's the same one as in the annual NCAA basketball tournament, with which you're probably unfortunately as unfamiliar as I am with Premier League soccer, but the rule is, "Survive and advance." If survival requires getting simpler then that's what will happen, the only other alternative being diminishing populations and eventual extinction.--Percy

httpEdited by spradling100164, : No reason given.

wow this sure makes me feel great "The missing link" hey gandpa,
Fossil Ida: Extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution | Fossil Ida | The Guardian

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) • • •

Three points:1) I'm not sure why getting "primate soft tissue" would answer any questions about relationships. It would be unlikely that any DNA could be found. As far as I know, the morphology is enough to call this fossil a primate.2) I'm not sure what you mean by "the primate vs lemur question." Lemurs are primates. Again, as far as I know, this fossil is what is expected as a species very close to the point at which the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage separated from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. The age is correct, as is the location.3) I don't quite grasp your implication that the recovery of soft tissue from the interior of this fossil might be possible, as it was possible from a massive dinosaur bone. The thickness of the fossil rock around the dinosaur soft tissue far exceeds the entire thickness of any bone of the fossil in question. I suspect that recovery of soft tissue would not be possible.

There is an old proverb to the effect that the thief thinks that everyone steals.The fact that you know that you are biased does not mean that everyone else is. The problem is, in fact, solved by pointing out that they evolved. It is not solved by attributing it to magic. What utter nonsense.

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) • • •

[qs]They have fur, so the degree of preservation is high, that's why I'm positing possible soft tissues available for further analysis.['qs]I don't think that his follows. The preservation of the shape of the fur and such is a different kind of preservation than that of proteins inside a bone. Very fine grained sediment can preserve evidence of fur but it does not necessarily do anything to support chemical preservation.

I think that you misunderstand. The fur was not preserved, only the impressions of the fur in the sediment. But there don't seem to be any proteins recoverable for the reasons that I mentioned before. Even in the famous case of the soft tissue recovered from a T. rex, there was no protein recovered, only some short sequences of amino acids. Since it is unlikely that any proteins will ever be found in this fossil, we'll just have to depend on the morphology to conclude that it is a transitional very near the split of the lemur, bush baby, aye-aye, and loris lineage from the tarsier, monkey, ape lineage. It shows traits of each lineage.

This post is a reply for Alan Clarke's Message 97, on the thread "Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity," where it is off-topic. Since this thread's original discussion has run its course, I propose that, if Alan wishes to continue his discussion about transitional fossils, he be allowed to do so here.Alan presented the following image as evidence that coelacanths and tetrapods are not related. Aside from the fact that he is attacking a 71-year-old argument (by his own admission) that is not considered valid by anybody he's trying to convince (again, by his own acknowledgement); Alan is also apparently only privy to partial evidence.He presented this image: I would like his opinion on this image: Note that Tiktaalik's limb fits nicely between the limb of a lobe-finned fish and the limb of a tetrapod.Also note that Tiktaalik's arm bones are attached to the ribcage (by means of a shoulder blade, no less), as are the arm bones of its predecessor, Panderichthys (whose shoulder blades are smaller and thinner than Tiktaalik's).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That was kind-of the point ...