I gotta say it is very possible since I have fallen from the Macro/micro debate, from the dating debate, that I will fall yet a 3rd time.
Glad I could help. I have to say it's been a great pleasure debating with you. Although I sense you want to dismiss evidence, I also sense that you want to be logical & consistent at the same time. You obviously understand that you can't have both & have taken the path to the light in going with logic, reason, & evidence. Changing your worldview can't be an easy thing to do, so I guess it's forgivable to encounter some resistance to it.
I'm sure you've seen this site before, but read it again. This time don't look at the evidences as singular entities. Look at them one at a time & in your head "multiply" them together (as corroborating facts should be). Then ask yourself, what are the chances that all of this, all of the corroboration between palaeontology, stratigraphy, genetics, cladistics, molecular biology, embryology, morphology etc is due to anything else but evolution?
Click on, in this order, the root of the tree, eukaryotes, animals, bilateria, deuterostoma, chordata, craniata, vertebrata, gnathostoma, sarcopterygii, terrestrial vertebrates, synapsida, therapsida, mammalia, eutheria, primates, catarrhini, hominidae, homo, Homo sapiens.
That's just walking up one branch of the tree of life, all of which is inferred independantly by cladistics, all of which is corroborated by the stratigraphic order of appearance, & again confirmed by radiometric dating.
------------------ "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
My point was not to distinguish between them, but that there needs be more of a balance in the fossil record with a greater quantity of Macro fossils than exists.
And what I'm telling you is, there's as many macro-transitional fossils as micro-transitional fossils, because they're the same fossils. Each fossil is a macro-transitional fossil and a micro-transitional fossil, because those distinctions are as meaningless as the distinction between micro-driving-on-the-highway (where you only go one city over) and macro-driving-on-the-highway (where you cross the country.) The only difference is of degree.
quote:Though adult echinoderms are radially symmetric, echinoderm larvae are bilaterally symmetric -- and resemble the larvae of indirect-developing hemichordates.
Hey! You know how science works? We make a prediction and see if it is observed. My prediction: molecular biology should confirm the observation of morphology in showing that echinodermata is related to hemichordates.
quote: Hey guys I have a question. I am researching phylogenies and I am wondering, are these phylogenies based from theoretical silent mutations (i.e. genetic drift,mutation,etc)?
(Not exactly my field, but . . .) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by basing a phylogeny on silent mutations. Phylogenies are based on comparisons of DNA sequence between organisms. The particular sequence chosen can be nonfunctional, in which case all mutations are neutral, or it can be functional (a gene, generally), in which case many mutations will be deleterious. Neutrally evolving sequences change too fast to be useful for any kind of deep phylogeny, so most phylogenies use genes, since these are kept from varying too fast by natural selection.
Nice link to the tree of life website - it really puts everything into perspective when you look at things in order like that . I couldn't find much in the way of fossils though, and I'd like to able to see, in simple terms the progression from one stage to another through 'fossil steps' (eg jawless fish to the first land quandropeds).
Could you (or anyone else for that matter) point me in the direction of such a set of pictures? I don't want to try it myself in case I make a glaring mistake (my knowledge in the area being only passing and in no way up to date).
Then maybe a creationist or two could debate specific examples rather than using hand-wavey arguments about how small the number of transitional fossils are
Edit: attack of the apostrophe's'
[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-09-2003]