What would a transitional fossil look like?

Fish aren't actually descended from cows, so your argument (such as it is) is about as pertinent as when Buzsaw, God rest him, proved that the Mississippi River couldn't possibly have produced the Grand Canyon.

Randomn variation plus selection gets you a version of the same creature, it's nothing but microevolution or standard variation. You can't get macroevolution out of any such events. The reason it doesn't work is that macroevolution requires something completely new to be formed. All those mechanisms do is rearrange what already exists.

Yep, it took millions and billions of years because the changes are teeny and weeny.Any changes that didn't result in a viable creature didn't get passed on A small percentage of them accumulated to produce "coherent new creatures". If you want to argue otherwise, show your math. Your argument from ignorance is irrelevant.

It really doesn't matter what you want to descend from what. It's impossible unless the genetic stuff is already present for the completely new creature. For instance getting a human being from a chimpanzee is equally impossible. Each has its own genome that makes the given creature and nothing else. To get from the chimpanzee to the human being requires a whole slew of changes into something altogether different from the chimpanzee, things that don't exist in the chimpanzee genome and that makes any such transformation impossible because mutation has to invent something completely new rather than simply changing something that already exists into another version of it which is already potential in the genome anyway.. You all imagine it's possible because of some similarities between them and that's the extent of the whole story. Your imagination.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A few hundred thousand years is enough for significant changes. Show your calculations. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

What kind of insanity are you talking about? Who is talking about a cow evolving into a fish? Nobody but you, as far as I can see. That is complete and utter nonsense, but unfortunately it is all too typical of what creationists think which is why creationist claims are so utterly stupid.Faith, you are demonstrating beyond any shadow of a doubt that you had no understanding of evolution nor of how it works. If you want to argue against evolution, then you first need to learn something about it. I do realize that ignorance is your forte, but that doesn't change the fact that ignorance does not work.

quote:

---

Gosh you're all so good at tit for tat. Not much else I fear.

---

You’re only good at empty bluster. Because the reality is that you don’t understand the processes.See Message 27 for examples.For instance: Or would you like to explain how that actually makes sense ?

And yet, curiously, it happens. Speciation has been observed, and that (with the formation of a nested hierarchy) is the essence of macroevolution according to the scientific definition of the term ... as opposed to the creationist definition and misuse of the term (they actually mean magic transformation, which doesn't occur). Nope. Macroevolution only requires speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies as each breeding population continues to microevolve, diverging from their ancestral population. Plus mutations that produce novel variations. What is "something completely new" in your view? For me it is novel variations produced by mutations, ones that are selected via normal breeding because they are not deleterious. These occur regularly and have been observed.Enjoy

(1) How are you distinguishing between things which are "another version" and things which are "completely new"?(2) How would we distinguish between these two things on the chromosomal level? I.e. if I showed you two sequences of A G C and T, how would we determine if one was something "completely new" compared to the other, or if it was just "another version" of it?(3) Why do you claim that the production of something "completely new" is impossible? You have supplied no evidence nor argument but just assumed this as an axiom.

The last sentence is of course complete bullshit, as you would know if you knew anything at all about genetics. This invalidates the nonsense that precedes it.

Something you CALL "macroevolution" happens. It's all word magic, semantics, nothing in physical reality that deserves the name at all. Something you CALL "speciation" occurs. The whole ToE is fantasy. "Speciation" is wishful thinking, it is not speciation at all that you are calling by that name. It is a variation on the genetic stuff built into a creature's genome that occurs at a point in a series of variations where a lot of homozygosity has occurred, making breeding very iffy with the new variation. That's all it is. If you examined the DNA of every "speciation" event I'm very sure you'd find out that it has less rather than more ability to vary further, which is hardly a precondition for bringing about a new species. I don't trust science to do this honestly of course. Nope. The "speciation" has produced something that has much LESS ability to go on evolving, so it isn't going to "continue to microevolve" except in the fevered imagination of evos. You assume it. Except for short time when the variation may play out to the very end of its capacity to vary you've never actually seen this. It's all theory. You imagine it happens because the theory says it happens. The most likely end result of the event you call speciation is extinction though it may survive for a while without any further evolution at all or just a couple of changes before the end comes. That's the thing. You can't GET any truly novel variations. All you can get is variations on whatever already exists. You may get something that is novel in that context just because it's already fairly depleted, but you won't get anything truly novel, merely a variation on whatever exists in the genome. Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome. Something the particular gene doesn't code for. Say a human shaped nose with human skin color for the chimpanzee's flat black nose or something like that. Something that is not in the creature's genome. Or an extra chamber to get from the reptile ear to the mammalian ear, and in the right place. Yes you have to have that kind of newness or you can't get a new creature. And that sort of newness isn't going to happen. But that sort of variation is within the existing genetic stuff of the genome. It is not truly novel, it is just another variation on an existing trait. You cannot get a new creature with this sort of variation even if you have millions of them over millions of years. You will only get variations on the same creature. The genome itself has to be changed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another version would be a different eye color from the eye color gene or genes, a different texture of fur from the fur texture gene or genes. Something completely new would be scales instead of fur perhaps, or a completely different kind of eye.Sorry have to take a break.

It matters to us, because we are looking at data that show what the most likely lines of descent are. The data are both molecular and paleontological.It is silly for you to carry on an argument about fantasy evolutionary events as if we are arguing for a position that you made up. The only kind of "completely new creature" is a normal baby that is created by the mating of a male and female and that carries a few mutations of the mix of parent's genes. It is a brand new baby where one didn't exist before. This is absolutely true, of course. Why would you use this as an example when only an idiot would think otherwise? Obviously. Why would you use this as an example when only an idiot would think otherwise? And none of us are arguing this has happened, so why are you acting as if this is our position? And interestingly, none of us are arguing that, so why are you acting as if this is our position? I can't tell what this means.If you think this is our position you are wrong.If this is your position it is still wrong. Your ability to read our imaginations is as faulty as your ability to accurately describe or indeed understand our position on evolution or transitional fossils.

Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow are the four mechanisms of evolution. I've discussed them many times on former threads. It's really a silly list in a way. Natural Selection, or simple geographic isolation of a portion of a population, which is a kind of selection, produces the changes that can produce a population with new characteristics. Genetic drift, understood as a form of selection, does the same thing. Mutations have to be selected or they're dead in the water as far as changing a population goes, and gene flow just interferes with selection and reproductive isolation which is necessary for selection to be effective, so it muddies up any population with new characteristics that might develop through selection. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would be nice if anyone would actually think for a change.Back later.