Macro and Micro Evolution

The fossil record does not support such an idea and neather does dna. Please read post 94, it explains better what I mean.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

I'm afraid that you are wrong - the ossil evidence and DNA strongly support macroevolution.Post 94 seemed to be talking about fossil skin colour which is complete nonsense - fossils rarely preserve any sort of skin at all, and certainly not the colour.

It was a example on, if the fossil record where to support the idea of macroevolution then the fossil record would match that of the skin color record (that is, if there was a skin color record). So if there are 25-45 intermediates for skin color from brown to white, then their should be the same for the fossil record concering fossils, that was the idea, I really don't know how you can come to any other conclusion. I was trying to make a point with the transition from one thing to the next.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

The fossil record doesn't have that sort of resolution. It has all sorts of limits on what it does and does not preserve. Skin colour being an exaple of something you can't get from fossils.And the REALLY big problem is that the fossils that are missing are those for what you call "microevolution". Intermediates are relatively common for higher taxonomic levels.Now what about the DNA evidence. What is it about that that you think contradicts macroevolution ? The fact is that DNA analysis is a useful tool for working out evolutionary relationships.

quote:

---

The fossil record doesn't have that sort of resolution. It has all sorts of limits on what it does and does not preserve.

---

The fact that the fossil record does not have this type of resolution for the transition is exactly why it does not support macro-evolution. DNA structure may be similar but it is much different, the difference is so large it does not say macroevolution occured it says it didn't and also the fact that we are similar to apes regarding DNA and formation,etc says their is a common creater not a evolution.Thank You
Sonic

Sonic,So if a subspecies of wolf were to become dogs, would that constitute macroevolution? How about a species of primates becoming modern humans?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

So basically your argument is that if the PARTICUALR evidence you want to see isn't there then you can ignore the other evidence all together?We do have many transitional fossils which ARE evidence for macroevolution, even if you don't like it.As for your comments on DNA vague comments aboute being "too big" (what differences ? by what standard are they "too big"?) are hardly a serious objection.

quote:

---

So if a subspecies of wolf were to become dogs, would that constitute macroevolution? How about a species of primates becoming modern humans?

---

be more specific on the process please.Thank You
Sonic

What the fossil record dictates is not any evidence what-so-ever that macroevolution has occured. What the fossil record does is, it allows room for imagination to come to play, and such theories as the TOE to be found theoretical but nothing more.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

Oh well it's obvious that your mind is closed to the truth.The evidence is there, but you don't want to accept it.

Sonic, The conclusion can be reached because the fossil record is incomplete. In your example of a series with 45 intermediates we may see 0+ transitionals. So if we see stage 3, 15, 40, & 45, we can piece together a lineage based upon those snapshots, we simply aren’t going to see every character gradually evolving (although sometimes we get lucky).The evidence that the fossil record is incomplete is based on the fact that we regularly find new fossil taxa. If we find new fossils, then it’s not complete, is it?In my view the best evidence of evolution in the fossil record is based upon the high congruence between cladistics & stratigraphy.http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdf

quote:

---

Stratigraphic Consistency Index

​

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

​

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

​

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."
  —Benton et al.

---

Benton et al. discovered that 75% + (averaged) of cladogram nodes were congruent with the fossil record & it’s stratigraphic position (based on 300+ cladograms. There are now over a thousand in the database & it looks very rosy indeed for evolutionary theory). If evolution hadn’t occurred then almost none of them would. Well, the null hypothesis for cladograms matching stratigraphy is that it does so with a correlation near to zero. That the average cladogram matches to the tune of 75% + blows away the null hypothesis, & the alternative is evolution.Evolution has been shown to have occurred in the fossil record, since other tests match it so well. So, like you say, I really don't know how you can come to any other conclusion that evolution occurred, based on the fossil record. Cladistics provides an objective test to determine phylogeny. That it broadly matches not only other cladograms, but the fossil record as well, is not "imagination". It is objective, hard evidence that evolution occurred.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2003]

Missing Link | Answers in Genesis It is the theory that states there is not enough genetic information to have macro evolution occur.------------------
-chris

I understand that the fossil record is incomplete and the theory is that we may never have a complete fossil record because of the way things change. Well read post 94, that is where I stand.Thank You
Sonic

quote:

---

Oh well it's obvious that your mind is closed to the truth.
The evidence is there, but you don't want to accept it.

---

Nay, truth is a conception, the truth is man well never find truth completly, we shall ever be confused and tossed to and fro. But anyways The point I am trying to make is just because we disagree does not make me right or make you right it means that we are both theoreticly right, so for the most part we both have much to learn.Thank You
Sonic

No, you're not wrong BECAUSE we disagree. But that doesn't change the fact that you refuse to accept the evidence - or even consider it- and then claim that it doesn't exist.The evidence is there. Refusing to think about it won't make it go away,