Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:18 AM
42 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2873 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 166 of 527 (578617)
09-02-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Huntard
09-02-2010 5:18 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
Ok. Good. I hope that, even though you'll probably never agree with us, you can follow our logic and see how we arived at the conclusions we do.

Right-on my friend, I enjoy talking with you Huntard. No, I never will agree with you but I love learning. I hope you you will be open to my reasons for rejecting the ToE as well.

Have to run but will talk with you soon.

IC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 5:18 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 5:40 AM ICdesign has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 167 of 527 (578621)
09-02-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by ICdesign
09-02-2010 5:29 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
ICDESIGN writes:

Right-on my friend, I enjoy talking with you Huntard.


As do I with you, mate.

No, I never will agree with you but I love learning.

Well, I guess that's all we can hope to achieve here. You learning and understanding our reasons, I mean.

I hope you you will be open to my reasons for rejecting the ToE as well.

Would I be right when I say that that is because you think it (ultimately) detracts from god's glory?

Have to run but will talk with you soon.

Ok, see you soon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 5:29 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 6:25 AM Huntard has responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 168 of 527 (578624)
09-02-2010 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 5:25 AM


Bolder-dash, please do not reply to this message in this thread. Please take these issues to your New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" thread. --Admin

Hello Bolder-dash,

It's been a while since last we crossed the swords of debate. I trust you've been well?

In any case, I'm going to have to be brief in this reply, as it is nearly 4am and I've got to get up for work in a few hours.

Bolder-dash writes:

So talk us through this Melindoor, what do YOU personally think the first mutations to those primitive fish without any skeletons at all would have looked like?

I'm not an expert, so my personal opinion doesn't weigh much in a scientific forum. I do know that knowing the exact details of how the first rudimentary skeletons formed is not very important. There are many ways that it could have happened. My guess would be that some form of head protection, some primitive cartilaginous cranium may have been the first to form, and sometime around there a cartilaginous notochord. I expect that experts in the field of paleobiology would be able to give you better, more educated explanations.

Myllokunmingia may be an early example of such an animal. Haikoichthys is another.

Bolder-dash writes:

And then what do you think that very first mutation that started the whole process out looked like? Was it a piece of bone near where the spine already was?

It was definitely not a piece of bone, but cartilage. Bone is mineralized, and comes later in the fossil record.

Bolder-dash writes:

Or was it a piece of bone that started off somewhere near his belly, and then over time and many generation slowly migrated over towards his back?

It started off where it was useful of course. If it were somewhere obtrusive and un-useful, it would not have lasted "many generations". It probably wouldn't last one generation. Probably it began as a very gradual stiffening around the "spine" and "head".

Bolder-dash writes:

And then, by the time it got close to his spine, to actually protect his spine, do you think that the part near the stomach started shrinking in successive generations, because by then all the men had bony stomachs so the girl fish no longer felt it was very sexy?

I suspect that fish are less superficial than you are.

Bolder-dash writes:

And then, do you think the girls started choosing the guys with the bony back, because they knew one day they would have bony back children themselves, and they knew that that bony back would be a big plus in case they bumped their spines on some coral that was just started to form a few miles offshore? Do you think they knew about the spine protection it was going to give them, or do you think they just sensed it?

Of course the primitive creatures had no idea what future adaptations would be like. What you are referring to (in a rather convoluted manner) is sexual selection. It would not have played a major role for this development.

Bolder-dash writes:

And what about back to that first guy who got the bony stomach mutation-do you think he is sort of famous throughout the entire marine world, as the guy who started off this whole darn bone race? Do you think there is an underwater Hall of Fame for the skeleton starter?

No.

Bolder-dash writes:

Might we even find his fossil remains one day

Maybe we have. How hard do you think it would be to notice, in a Cambrian fossil of a worm, whether or not it had the beginnings of a slight cartilaginous notochord?

Bolder-dash writes:

And how often do bony stomach mutations happen these days anyway? Are they passe?

As I said, the first "bones" would have been cartilaginous. Cartilage is made up of fiber and collagen proteins which are fairly ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. For instance, it makes up the tip of your nose.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Admin, : Add moderation comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 5:25 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dr Jack, posted 09-02-2010 8:55 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2873 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 169 of 527 (578628)
09-02-2010 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Huntard
09-02-2010 5:40 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
OK, one more quick one before I run out the door

Huntard writes:

Would I be right when I say that that is because you think it (ultimately) detracts from god's glory?

While that is true I would have to start with the fact that I believe the biblical account of God speaking all things into existence in a six day period.. The ToE violates several laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of non-contradiction. ie; something from nothing and a design without a designer.

Later...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 5:40 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 6:45 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 170 of 527 (578631)
09-02-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICdesign
09-02-2010 6:25 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
ICDESIGN writes:

While that is true I would have to start with the fact that I believe the biblical account of God speaking all things into existence in a six day period.


Yes, that's (partly) what I meant when I said that. You think god wouldn't be true to "his word" when the bible is not taken literally in this instance, and so, his glory is diminished.

The ToE violates several laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of non-contradiction. ie; something from nothing and a design without a designer.

Well, that's not exactly true. But this is perhaps not the thread to discuss that. We should focus on the skeletal system. I will say however, that it only looks like design to you, to me, it doesn't look designed at all. And yes, we may call it a "design", but really, any configuration can be called that, that still doesn't mean it is.

Later...

Later mate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 6:25 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 171 of 527 (578639)
09-02-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 5:25 AM


The origins of skeletons
Bolder-dash, please do not reply to this message in this thread. Please take these issues to your New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" thread. --Admin

So talk us through this Melindoor, what do YOU personally think the first mutations to those primitive fish without any skeletons at all would have looked like?

Here was this soft fleshy kind of fish thing, that had no spine, and no bones of any kind. And then what do you think that very first mutation that started the whole process out looked like? Was it a piece of bone near where the spine already was? Or was it a piece of bone that started off somewhere near his belly, and then over time and many generation slowly migrated over towards his back? Do you think those early first fish with the bones near their stomach looked silly, compared to the others? Do you think the other fish laughed at him, or do you think the female fish decided he was special, and so he got a good selection advantage, and that is why more fish ended up with the bony stomach?

As Meldinoor pointed out, we can't be certain of the exact route the evolution of the skeleton took. What we can do, though, is to look at fossils, and at still existing animals with primitive skeletons, to work out which bits probably came first.

The oldest skeletons were cartilage, which was only (partially) replaced by bone later. Looking at the near relatives of the vetebrates, we find the lancelets. These little creatures don't have any skeleton, nor do they have a proper brain, a heart, or any paired fins. They do, however, have little bits of cartilage. These aren't randomly strewn around the body, they're in places like the tail, where stiffness helps them get the propulsion they need to burrow into the sand, and supporting the gill arches.

The big step to the development of a skeleton came with the evolution of a skull. We can be confident the skull came first, as there are living and fossil animals, like hagfish, which have skulls but no other skeleton. The advantage of a skull is, I hope, obvious. It protects the newly evolved brain from damage. Sexual selection is unlikely to have played much of a role in any of this - the skeleton just had clear survival advantages.

Edited by Admin, : Add moderation comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 5:25 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 172 of 527 (578658)
09-02-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by ICdesign
09-02-2010 4:00 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
ICDESIGN writes:

So if an organism starts out fully formed with the systems it needs to survive already fully developed, that is an act of creation not evolution.

Barring genetic mistakes, all organisms are born with everything they need to grow into "fully formed" organisms according to their species, but what constitutes "fully formed" is different for every species. Evolution is just one species evolving into another over and over again. The changes these species experience are driven by changing environments, and each species is "fully formed," that is, adapted, to its environment. The fossils we find in the ground are like snapshots taken at random times, and all those fossils were "fully formed," well adapted, to their environments.

The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed." "Organisms" that experienced mutations that enabled them to create more copies of themselves would come to dominate. In any population of these "organisms" those best at reproducing would outcompete those less good at it, and so the populations would tend to consist of the most successful organisms. As the environment changed those "organisms" best able to cope would outcompete the rest, and their offspring would come to dominate the populations. Change over time with increasingly good adaptation to the current environment is what happens. And of course at some point the some population of these "organisms" passes through some threshold of complexity where we would feel comfortable calling it life.

Once we have the first simple life then true evolution takes over, but at all points in time the organisms are evolving in tiny increments and are always well adapted to their environment. There are never any half-formed organisms. Each generation of organisms is just very slightly different from the proceeding one.

The question is; how long does it take a new body part to evolve? It certainly takes longer than the life of a given organism.

This is absolutely true, because individuals don't evolve. Change happens during the imperfect copying of reproduction.

How does that new body part appear in the next off spring, and the next, and the next until its a full body part?

If you're using people as an example, I can't imagine any selection pressure that would select for something that might eventually become a new skeletal body part, but there is a rather good example from another species, the panda. The panda's thumb is not actually a thumb at all, it's an extension to the wrist bone. The panda's actual thumb is just another digit lined up with its other digits. The fossil record and genetic analysis tells us that the giant panda and the red panda are distantly related creatures that evolved the thumb feature independently. Fossils tell us that the "thumb" evolved while the panda was still carnivorous and so was used for a purpose other than stripping bamboo, perhaps for climbing or grasping prey. Here's an article with some interesting details about it: The Other Pandas Thumb

The important point to take from this is that evolving a new feature takes many, many generations, and that at each point along the way the change must provide some advantage, otherwise it won't be selected and will be lost. The advantage the feature provides may also change over time. A little stretch of cartilage that was originally selected because it provided stiffness for swimming may later find that variants that are bigger and thicker become advantageous when a predator moves into the environment. The cartilage did not originally evolve to provide protection, but later it does. That is the way evolution works, by tweaking what is already there to provide some advantage. With complex creatures new body parts are not going to evolve because they would provide no advantage. But with the multicellular blobs that began to appear six or seven hundred million years ago the advantages of any specialized body parts at all would be immense. Any little hard parts or light sensitive parts or communication parts (nerves) that a mutation might provide would likely be strongly selected for.

We see in Message 119 how a bad mutation can show up for our viewing. Where are the examples of a mutation producing a useful new feature?

In relatively huge and complex creatures like ourselves and all vertebrae that consist of billions and billions of cells and many complex interacting systems, it is not that likely for a single mutation or short sequence of mutations to cause a new feature. The most that can be reasonably expected is something like what happened in Tibet with the mutational change responsible for improved adaptation to altitude.

In order to get a new feature in a short period of time with just one or a few mutations you need a relatively simple organism, like bacteria. Bacteria are sufficiently small and simple that new features can evolve from small genetic changes, such as the nylon eating capability.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 4:00 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ICdesign, posted 09-03-2010 12:59 PM Percy has responded
 Message 242 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 2:29 PM Percy has responded
 Message 265 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 4:58 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 173 of 527 (578669)
09-02-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Meldinoor
09-02-2010 6:02 AM


Just to add to this

It started off where it was useful of course. If it were somewhere obtrusive and un-useful, it would not have lasted "many generations". It probably wouldn't last one generation. Probably it began as a very gradual stiffening around the "spine" and "head".

Indeed. But even here, the addition of cartilage was likely not the first stiffening of the "spine" of an animal. The notochord (which is the "spine" in the most primitive chordates and which emerges briefly during development even in humans) consists of fluid filled vesicles surrounded by connective tissue. It is the hydrostatic pressure of this fluid that stiffens the body of these chordates. It is likely that the development of a more conventional skeleton began with a thickening and merging of this connective tissue to form a primitive cartilage "spine".

As I said, the first "bones" would have been cartilaginous. Cartilage is made up of fiber and collagen proteins which are fairly ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. For instance, it makes up the tip of your nose.

In fact the proteins involved in forming the extracellular matrix, and later skeletons, arose before animals and before multi-cellular eukaryotes. Very similar proteins are found in single celled organisms such Choanoflagellates where they act as anchoring proteins to bind these organisms to rocky surfaces, and these anchoring proteins are themselves related to proteins that are involved in forming the cytoskeleton internal to the cell itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Meldinoor, posted 09-02-2010 6:02 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 174 of 527 (578679)
09-02-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICdesign
09-02-2010 3:34 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
So if an organism starts out fully formed with the systems it needs to survive already fully developed, that is an act of creation not evolution.

Nope, it is called a normal birth.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 3:34 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 527 (578703)
09-02-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 7:08 PM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
That is called creation not evolution

Like Jar said, no, it's called "birth."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 7:08 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 176 of 527 (578709)
09-02-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
Keep going back to the first one. The very first one. What is you guys don't get about being the very first one?
If the first one burst on the scene fully formed that is called creation not evolution.

Call it whatever you want, but the point is that you only needed the appearance of a single fully formed organism. All of the descendents of that first fully formed organism will likewise be fully formed. In the line of inheritance from that last universal common ancestor to all living species there was an unbroken chain of fully formed species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 7:06 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 177 of 527 (578710)
09-02-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICdesign
09-01-2010 7:08 PM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
That is called creation not evolution

You have been taught about the the birds and the bees, have you not?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICdesign, posted 09-01-2010 7:08 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ICdesign, posted 09-03-2010 1:07 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 178 of 527 (578711)
09-02-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ICdesign
09-02-2010 4:00 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
The question is; how long does it take a new body part to evolve?

Wrong question. Are they new body parts or modifications of body parts from previous generations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ICdesign, posted 09-02-2010 4:00 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 179 of 527 (578749)
09-02-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Blue Jay
08-31-2010 3:13 PM


Re: Great Potential
Hi Jay,

Bluejay writes:

First, do you really think DNA needs to be given orders to mutate?

You lost me there.

I thought an accident was required for the DNA to mutate.

My understanding which is probably flawed.

The information stored in DNA as a code is made up of four chemical bases.

There are about 3 billion base pairs of which 99% of those base pairs are the same in all people.

The information stored in these base pairs determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism.

Nearly every cell in a person's body has the same DNA.

DNA can replicate and make copies of itself.

Errors can be made in this process.

Very few of these errors are not corrected by the DNA correction processes.

The one that gets through is a mutation.

There are beneficial, determential, and netural mutations.

The famous fly Drosophila melanogaster study suggest that a protein change by a gene will be harmeful about 70% of the time, having damaging results even death. The remaining 30% will either be netural or weakly beneficial.

In this particular study a leg was produced in the place of an antenna as well as an eye in a leg.

How am I doing so far?

In the fly study it is discovered that a particular sequence is required for the eye to be produced. That means that specific information is required to build an eye.

Bluejay writes:

There are always mutations happening. They are a normal part of the background chemistry of life. They happen because chemical reactions are messy and subject a large number of environmental gradients that will impact the products that the reaction produces.

Your understanding is much different from the information that I have been able to find on mutations. Do you have some studys that back up this particular statement?

Bluejay writes:

And, there is also always selection happening.

I understand living organisms die. That is just a fact of life.

Bluejay writes:

The result was organisms with lots of knobs of mineralized bones and lots of lobes of contractile muscles, and all that was required was for natural selection to amplify those organisms whose bones were arranged in such a way that muscle action was more efficient.

If that is the case, why does the fossil record not verify this information?

The Coelacanth that was supposed to have lived in shallow water and finally walked up on land and became the first living land creature has remained basically the same for the past 410 million years. Where is the mutations?

The Horseshoe crab has been around for 425 million years and remains the same today. Where is the mutations?

The cockroach is the oldest winged insect in the world and appears some 350 million years ago, and remains the same today. Where is the mutations?

The fossil record does not support evolution by mutation and natural sellection.

The observation of the fossil record supports that species are amazingly conservative and stasis for long periods of time.

Since this is a fact some scientist developed the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria.

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) in "The Myths of Human" Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 48 says: "The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."

Gould, S.J. (1977) in "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86, May says:
"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

A species appearing fully formed all at once supports creation, not evolution.

Bluejay writes:

It really isnt that difficult to envision this process. Just remember that, at every step, there is variation in anatomy and behavior; and that this variation is different from the variation that existed at the last step, because messy chemistry is continually causing changes; and that the most successful, most efficient and most reliable features and behaviors tend to be amplified in the next generations due to the advantages they bestow on their owners.

It is very difficult to envision such a process considering the evidence observed in the fossil record. Unless a person is living in a fantasy world.

Do you have supporting documentation for your statement?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 3:13 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 2:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 181 by DrJones*, posted 09-02-2010 2:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Blue Jay, posted 09-02-2010 4:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Dr Jack, posted 09-03-2010 4:47 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 180 of 527 (578756)
09-02-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ICANT
09-02-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Great Potential
You lost me there.

I thought an accident was required for the DNA to mutate.

The enzymes that copy DNA do not perfectly duplicate the DNA sequence from one strand to the other. In the molecular biology trade we call this infidelity. You can actually purchase different polymerases that have lower or higher fidelity which relates to the rate at which they produce mutations.

I guess you can call it an "accident" if you want, but it just so happens that this is just the way things are.

In the fly study it is discovered that a particular sequence is required for the eye to be produced. That means that specific information is required to build an eye.

There is no "eye" gene. Rather, it is a sequence of different genes being turned off and on in a certain order that results in an eye. There are master genes, or master switches if you will, that get the ball rolling. They are called hox genes. What they did in that experiment was mess around with the hox genes.

If that is the case, why does the fossil record not verify this information?

Why doesn't it verify it? We see the exact transitionals we should see if evolution is true. We see the primitive conditions in living organisms, for Pete's sake.

The Coelacanth that was supposed to have lived in shallow water and finally walked up on land and became the first living land creature has remained basically the same for the past 410 million years. Where is the mutations?

There are over 100 hundred known coelacanth species, to start off with. The living species of coelacanth is different than any known fossil species. So first off, it has changed. Seconly, no one claims that it was the coelacanth that walked up onto land and became the common ancestor of all tetrapods. And as to the mutations? They are in the genome of the coelacanth. Where else did you expect to find them? In a cloud?

The fossil record does not support evolution by mutation and natural sellection.

The observation of the fossil record supports that species are amazingly conservative and stasis for long periods of time.

I fail to see how conservation of morphology is evidence against natural selection. Care to explain?

Also, are you saying that we should NOT see fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features if evolution is true? Can you please explain this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2010 1:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019