What would a transitional fossil look like?

Not really. All that happens is that new combinations of existing alleles produce new phenotypes. If the new reproductively isolated population is small enough the new combinations may be very rare, giving the impression of newness to evos who just have to believe that's what it is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The concept of Kind does not assume speciation and I can't even grasp where you would get such an idea. All variation occurs within the Kind, even when a particular variation turns out to be unable to breed with the parent population, that's a complete rejection of the idea of speciation. Speciation is a bogus definition evos believe in, not creationists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

None of those mutations is new in the sense that they violate the basic programming of the genome of the species. And many of them are genetic diseases and even more of them don't change anything anyway. Which if they did would only be a change within the coding of the gene they affect. I suspect huge numbers of them are the cause of all the junk DNA in any given genome. That is, they kill the genetic stuff, they do nothing whatever to further it. You cannot get a new species from such changes even in millions of years. Most likely they'd just kill the organism in a lot less time than that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Absolutely true. resulting in two reproductively isolated populations of crows, which is not speciation. Or would you call a population of human beings isolated on an island for a couple hundred years speciation? I thought not.

Of course if you were able to change the human genome into an exact copy of a chimp genome of course you would get a chimp.The thing is you seem to think that a mere accumulation of random mutations could change one species into another. I see no reason why you would get anything but a variation on the species, simply some new characteristics of what is clearly a chimp for instance. There is no reason to think you'd get anything different from a chimp if it is a chimp genome that is acquiring the mutations. They will only change the appearance of the chump, they won't produce anything but a chimp.It also seems to me that each species' genome must have some sequences that define the most fundamental characteristics of the creature and that for some reason those don't change. For instance I look at the chart of all the known dog species and it's pretty clear that they all have exactly the same kind of body structure while it's the more superficial characteristics that change -- and not by mutation either -- and account for all the dramatic differences between the breeds. Dogs all have a rigid body build, a tail that wags, a head that is raised above the choulders etc etc etc. All the dog breeds retain all the characteristics that make them recognizably dogs no matter how big or small they are, no matter how much hair they have, they retain all the behavioral characteristics as well as the basic dog build. As compared, say, to cats, with their flexible bodies and their heads which are on a level with their bodies etc etc etc. I just don't see those characteristics changing. And yes, just as I always argue, when you get a breed of a certain new set of characteristics it should have less ability to further vary than a mutt would. Less ability to vary means that although it may be a striking new "species" or breed it isn't going to evolve further. That' means the end of evolution for that line of variation, which is of coruse the opposite of what the ToE requires.I also like the example of the trilobites. According to the usual idea they span many hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record and yet they all have basically the same body structure. All the changes are superficial, not much of a record for the ToE which should produce far more dramatic changes if species-to-species evolution were actually true.And then there are the Jutland cattle which produced four separate distinct populations in a matter of a few years, and of course the Pod Mcaru lizards which produced a dramatically new "species" within thirty years. Evolution doesn't take anywhere near as long as you all think, and always a mere variation on the recognizable creature is all that is produced.

But they don't. The differences are much greater than those between cats and dogs: I described the differences that define their respective genomes. The chimp's extra long muscular arms, muscular torso and short legs with hand-like feet, plus skull shape etc etc etc, amount to greater differences in body structure than those between cats and dogs. It's just that there's a lot less time in the fossil record between the very different body structures of the reptiles and the mammals than between the very similar trilobite groups. A LOT less. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of years less. Of course the trilobites didn't HAVE to evolve that much I suppose, but it strikes me as a bit odd that there should be such huge differences between the reptiles and the mammals in so much less time while the trilobites remain trilobites for so much longer. I mean the ToE would lead me to expect more changes in the trilobites over such a long span of time. However I've also mused that to get the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear is impossible anyway.Just a pondering. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Only according to the bogus idea of "speciation" where there may be enough genetic changes to make interbreeding impossible between populations that are otherwise clearly the same species. Yes we have different definitions of these things. You think it's possible to get a new species altogether, I think that can't happen. I argue for sameness of body structure as I just did above. I also argue that the "processes of evolution" only describe changes within a given species, from its built-in genetic possibilities, beyond which further change is impossible, which can be appreciated when you get dramatically new phenotypes in a reproductively isolated subpopulation based on many fixed loci, which is a condition that makes further variation much less possible, but for the ToE to be true you need more variation not less. This simply functionally defines the limits of a given species' genome rather than defining the species more directly.I don't use your criteria to define species as you see. Body structure and other basic shared characteristics make panthera and felis the same species. Yes I also believe the housecat and the tiger and all other cats that can be defined by their obvious "catness" are all the same species. Flexible bodies, stalking with head down, long tails, purring when content, lots of things define the species as containing all cats, Yup.Yes defining species is difficult for evos. It's also just plain difficult for some creatures. In the end it should be characteristics of the genome itself that do the defining. Meanwhile I do what I can with observations of body structure and behavioral similarities.

No, I don't think any amount of mutations could bring about such a change, I was only saying that IF you could change the human genome into the chimp genome you'd get a chimp. I don't think it possible by any amount of mutations or anything else. I think the number of mutations you believe could bring about such a coherent new genome would far sooner destroy the genome than get anything coherent out of it at all. I do believe that junk DNA is a record of destruction of genes by mutations.I don't think you could ever get a different species from any number of mutations in any given genome because I think the genome defines the basic structure of a species in such a way that it can't ever make anything other than the species it makes. All you can ever get from mutations over long periods of time is either total destruction of the genome and the creature starting with all kinds of diseases and deformities, or in the case of useful mutations, which we know are very rare, all you'd ever get are changes in the superficial characteristics that are defined by given gene sequences, different textures and colors etc, no structural changes except of course different sizes and that sort of change such as we see in cats and dogs. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course I think otherwise, that they retain their body structure. They all retain the general oval shape and the three lobes. That's the main morphology or basic body structure it seems to me. The variations are in how the "limbs" are arranged (Can't remember the term). In some variations the shape seems to be obscured but it's possible to show that it remains nevertheless.I suspect that most cats would agree with me by the way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ad hominems really add nothing to the discussion. Your job is to explain how I'm wrong and give what you think is the correct answer. In this particular case I was answering according to my observation of the form of trilobites in the various illustrations so I'm not just theorizing. I've also given descriptions of the body structure of chimpanzees and cats and dogs to make my point about those creatures. I'm counting on you all to be able to form pictures in your heads, but if necessary maybe I can dig up the relevant charts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was merely observing the fact that the adult body structure is basically the same in each species. I assume this is controlled by some part of the genome and I would like to know more about how the genome produces it but I don't see the relevance of the stages of growth as you are discussing it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You aren't thinking and there is nothing hilarious about any of this except your refusal to think about what I'm saying. The bulldog and the whippit body structures differ in an overall way, the bulldog more squashed, the whippet more elongated, but nevertheless the basic structure is similar in the sense I was talking about it: more rigid build than a cat's in both cases, same limb shape, head positioned above shoulders etc. Differences in size, length etc., don't matter in my frame of reference which I would think would be obvious from the fact that I was clearly referring to ALL dog breeds. The basic shape is the same. Actually considering what I said would help.For all I know and for all you said the scientists don't say anything appreciably different on this subject than I'm saying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I made a simple observatgion about the similarity of body structure as seen on charts illustrating trilobites. I said nothing whatever about what scientists say about it AND NEITHER DID YOU. You assume a lot. For all you know they would agree about my general point. You don't bother to think you just blow hot air.

I described the differences between humans and chimps to show the differences. They are far less similar than dogs and cats to each other.

What I said scientists would likely agree with is the general three-lobed shape as the basic structure of trilobites.But the willful ignorance here is really not worth bothering about. I can talk to other people who will get the point and you all can continue to deceive yourselves as you like.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.