What would a transitional fossil look like?

Jeeez! You literalists are no fun at all! AZPaul3 was being sarcastic in an obvious parody of you stupid literalists! Jeeeez!BTW, cetaceans are not fish nor fishy. Besides many other obvious problems, cetacean flukes are very different from fishy fins. Fish swim side to side, whereas cetaceans swim up and down -- we even learned that up-down stroke in skin diving and SCUBA class.Of course, on this very forum right here we still have you yourself personally demonstrating via the felid "basic created kind" that microevolution leads directly to macroevolution. Of course in typical creationist fashion, you immediately started back-pedaling and denying everything you had just revealed, but that does not change the facts.Just for review, the "felid basic created kind" includes both genera of Felidae which are Panthera (lions, tigers, and leopards, oh my!) and Felinae (all kinds of kitties and more). All kinds of hybrids are possible within Felinae and all kinds of hybrids are possible are possible within Panthera, but not hybrids between the two genara Felinae and Panthera (well, that is one that happened, which was very unexpected, but that does not negate the fundamental reproductive barrier between felid genera).According to Faith and standard creationism, both genera Felinae and Panthera are of the same basic created kind. And yet they have essentially become reproductively isolated, the very definition of macroevolution. And they do not even begin to approach the same problems presented by YEC's "basic worm kinds" and "basic moth kinds", etc.So then, yes, Faith herself did indeed prove on this very forum that microevolution does indeed lead directly to macroevolution.

I could grant you the first two points, though with reservations since that second one had weird terminology attached.But the actual problem with creationists is that they require things that are plainly and simply not true and so should not be considered.If somebody wants to present pure and utter BS, then you should point that out. And your point is???

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.

Wow! What a mass of verbal garbage! You really have absolutely no clue how anything works, do you?

Uh, what? If it's the same species, then it can interbreed. If it's another species that's still related closely enough, then you can create hybrids. But when they are no longer able to interbreed in any way, then they are separate species, regardless of your denial of reality.So then in your own special personal reality, just what marks separate species as being separate species? Dogs and butterflies cannot interbreed, so are they separate species? Precisely why? According to the definition you present (ie, inability to breed doesn't make any difference), we cannot determine that they are different species.Your own example was the felid "basic created kind", which encompasses two different genera (plural of genus), panthera and felis. Within felis, you have many possible hybrids, and within panthera you have many possible hybrids, but between panthera and felis you have next to no hybrids -- there was one hybrid that crossed the line to the surprise of scientists.Your argument is that the felid "basic created kind" is just one single species. So you actually believe that your housecat is the same species as that tiger in the zoo? And you still want us to take you seriously? You may be that stupendously stupid, but we are not.There is a problem in biology in how to define species, which is exactly what we would expect with evolution. But your attempts to further blur that definition just veers off into the weeds.

Actually, not just Faith's hyper-simplistic phenotype criterion (ie, having the same "basic shape") would classify humans and chimps as being of the same species, but also her criterion of having the same basic genome.Humans and chimps have many of the same genes in the same places on the same chromosomes. Ah, she would equivocate and back-pedal yet again, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24 as chimps have. In fact, if you look at human Chromosome 2, you find that it was formed by the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which are still separate in chimps -- its very structure demonstrates that it is two fused chromosomes (eg, a second vestigial centromere, vestigial telomeres in the middle of the chromosome). Not only have we identified the two "ape chromosomes" that fused to form human Chromosome 2, but we have also found the same genes in the same places on human Chromosome 2 that are on the two "ape chromosomes".Additionally, for decades now biochemists working with protein sequence comparisons have found the genetic commonalities between chimps and humans to be amazing. In 1990 I wrote a report on Duane Gish's deliberate lie on national TV about a bullfrog protein showing humans and bullfrogs to be more closely related (the most evidence he ever provided to support that was admitting that it was based on a joke he had overheard about the protein having been taken from an enchanted prince who had been turned into a frog ... seriously!). At the time, I posted it in a CompServe library and have re-posted it on my site: THE BULLFROG AFFAIR or The Enchanted Prince Croaks.Here is my report what Dr. Russell Doolittle reported on the PBS documentary (copied from that show's transcript):

quote:

---

In a recent article in _Discover_ magazine, Dr. Russell Doolittle tells
how his early research in protein comparisons had sparked his interest in
evolution.  In a 1982 PBS program ("Creation vs Evolution:  Battle in the
Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982), he told this story:
​
Doolittle:  "Ever since the time of Darwin the chimpanzee has been
regarded as man's nearest living relative.  Naturally it was then
of interest to biochemists to see what chimpanzee proteins would
look like.  Now the first protein to be looked at in a chimpanzee,
and compared with a human, was the hemoglobin molecule -- hemoglobin
one of the blood proteins -- and in fact, there were no differences
found in the chimpanzee molecule when 141 amino acids were looked at
in the hemoglobin alpha chain.  In contrast, if you looked at a
rhesus monkey, there were four differences; or if you looked at a
rabbit, you found the differences got up into the 20s.  If you got
up to a chicken you'd find 59 differences; and if you looked at a
fish you'd find there were more than a hundred differences.  Now
this is exactly what you expect from the point of view of evolution."
​
Narrator:  "Three more proteins were analyzed."
​
Doolittle:  "Once again, no differences compared -- chimpanzee
compared with human.  It was astonishing.  In fact a rumor began
to sweep around biochemists, that maybe all the differences
between chimpanzee and human were really going to turn out to be
cultural.  Well, in fact, one more protein was quickly looked at
-- this was a large one -- 259 amino acids -- and a difference
was found.  Whew!"

---

Well, now according to Faith's "new and improved" criteria, it turns out that humans and chimps are indeed the same species and the differences are purely cultural.On that page, I review several creationist claims about protein comparisons, including Walter Brown's infamous rattlesnake protein (which was still in his on-line book last I saw, though in a footnote without any details). From http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE:

quote:

---

Then in the Summer of 1984, Kenney wrote to Walter Brown about the fetal
horse hemoglobin.  Brown responded with a telephone call.  Kenney tried to get
Brown to confirm or deny the ICR's claims, or at least to pressure the ICR to
produce some kind of documentation.  Brown refused, but instead offered another
claim:  rattlesnake proteins.
Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret
Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely
related to humans that to any other organism.  When Kenney asked Brown to
provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff
had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't.  Dayhoff had never
reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to
reach that conclusion for a science fair project.  It was Brown's son who had
concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c
than to any other organism.
For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project
(apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are).  Kenney wrote:
​
"In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed
by only fourteen amino acids.  Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by
one amino acid.  Later, Brown called me again and then explained that
of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the
RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was
the rattlesnake.  You see, among the forty-seven there were no other
snakes."   (CEN Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)
​
Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the
rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just
barely less different than the others.  Obviously, this is just semantic
sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so
blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.
Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about
rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism.
When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown
quickly changed the subject.

---

Note also that chimpanzees were also not included in the Dayhoff study. About half a decade after having written that, I obtained a library of protein sequences for various organisms and software to perform those comparisons. I ran the comparison of cytochrome c between humans and chimps. Do you remember how rhesus monkeys and humans differed by one amino acid? The difference between chimps and humans was zero. Chimp and human cytochrome c are identical.Yet more evidence for Faith to show that humans and chimps are of the same species.Well, if for no other reason than for sh17s and giggles, here is Gish's deliberate lie on national TV. Copied from that same PBS documentary described above, here is Dr. Duane Gish's response to Dr. Doolittle's story of chimp and human protein comparisons:

quote:

---

The Bullfrog Affair itself starts with the KPBS production, "Creation vs
Evolution:  Battle in the Classroom", which aired 7 July 1982.  After Dr.
Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins (see above), Dr.
Duane Gish responded:
​
"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed
that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things.
But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will
find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a
chimpanzee.  If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a
chimpanzee."
​
This was immediately followed by Dr. Doolittle's response, "Oh bullfrog!
I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you."  This was the first
recorded use of "Bullfrog" that I am aware of.  Then Doolittle indicated a
book full of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins taken from
many hundreds of species and offered Gish all his worldly belongings, a '63
VW and half a house, if Gish could find just one protein in chickens or
bullfrogs that is more closely related to human proteins than chimpanzee
proteins.

---

What followed was a comedy of errors in Gish's attempts to perform a cover-up, which ended with him claiming that if we wanted that evidence so much, then it was our responsibility to come up with that evidence, not his. Gee, doesn't that sound so very familiar from all our dealings with creationists?It also became common practice for years afterwards to respond to typical creationist BS, especially when done by Gish himself, with cries of "Bullfrog!" instead of "Bullshit!"BTW, the original researchers didn't know what Gish had meant by his references to chicken proteins, but I think that I've tracked it down to Gary Parker's misrepresentation of the book, The Structure and Action of Proteins by Richard Dickerson and Irving Geis (1969, page 78). In their discussion of "molecular clocks" which is dating estimation based on the accumulation of neutral mutations (and therefore not subject to natural selection), they used the example of the evolution of lysozymes into alpha-lactalbumin, which were subject to selection, to warn against over-simplistic application of the "molecular clock" idea. Either Gary Parker was unable to understand what Dickerson was writing or else he deliberately misrepresented it. The answer to that question is pretty much a toss-up.

We should expand upon that reference to tetrapods. Tetrapod is a superclass -- refer to the classical Linnean classification system: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. So then Tetrapod is placed above Class (ignoring non-tetrapod classes -- eg, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles) and below Phylum (ignoring other phyla -- eg, chordates meaning vertebrates).So then what Faith is essentially arguing is that all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (which includes humans) are all of the same species. Which is just complete and utter loony-tunes batshit crazy.

That "sameness of the structure" is that of a tetrapod: basically four limbs, head able to move independently of the body (for the other option, thing of a fish), tail. As I describe in Message 139, it is a super-class, which includes all the classes below it: amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (including humans). Therefore, we have you arguing that all members of the super-class Tetrapod are of the same species. Such a position as you are making is absurd on the face of it.That basic tetrapod structure falls under the purview of HOX genes, which control the building of the overall body structure during embryonic development and during metamorphosis. One of the basic problems with changes of that HOX system is that it is most likely to result in the grotesque results which fuel creationist claims of "all mutations are malignant" and which would normally not be passed on to the next generation. That would include to mutations induced and studied in The Fruit Fly Room in the early 20th Century which included fruit flies with legs growing on their heads instead of antennae.Bottom line is that there is strong selective pressure against major changes in the basic body plan, so it should come as no surprise that there is a strong tendency to preserve that basic body plan. And you are violating most social norms by pretending to be surprised at the obvious.If all that went over your head, there are a series of music videos on YouTube by acapellascience (true to the name, he also does the instruments), one of which addresses this question: Evo-Devo (Despacito Biology Parody). All his videos are subtitled so you can read along.

Uh, no. Please stop your stupid lying.I do indeed distinguish between different tetrapods all the way down to the species level, which you have so far refused to do. So far, your argument has been that "basic structure" means that they are the same species. All of us disagree with that.Point us to the exact messages where you distinguished between different tetrapods. IOW, just what the fuck are you blathering on about?

Except that your entire argument was not about the phenotype (the basic physical structure), but rather the genotype. You had been going on and on about genomes and the different species genomes. Just what the hell do you think a genome is, anyway? Are you only pretending to be so ignorant and stupid or are you actually so afflicted?Small changes in the genome can result in large changes in the phenotype while large changes can result in little or no change in the phenotype (or are the terms "phenotype" and "genotype" above your ability to comprehend? -- with your all-too-apparent impairments it is difficult for us to know). Ultimately for evolution, the only real changes (ie, mutations) of importance are genetic (ie, in the genotype), though how important they are depends on how they are expressed (ie, in the phenotype) and selected for or against.So then, the touchstone is not physical appearance. There is a multitude of species which superficially appear to be similar (your stated preferred indication of relatedness here) and yet are completely unrelated. Eg, several marsupials who appear similar to placentals filling the same kinds of ecological niches; not in the least related genetically yet physically very similar. Whales and other cetaceans and fish, an utterly false "evolutionary sequence" that you yourself have recently argued for as a counter-example. Physically similar due to the demands of the environment, yet completely unrelated.IOW, your criterion for relatedness of mere physical similarity is completely false and complete and total BS.The true measure of relatedness is the genome and the way to measure relatedness is by comparing genomes, which includes comparing protein sequences. Genetically, chimps are indeed "our nearest neighbor{s}" (Jeez, woman! If you're going to live in this country, then at least learn the fucking language! -- the chimp's what for fuck's sake? (IOW, Do not use the possessive if you refuse to divulge just exactly what is supposed to be possessed!)). The true touchstone of relatedness is the genome, the genetics, the protein sequences.

---

A touchstone was an assaying tool, a piece of slate-like stone. If you rubbed a piece of precious metal (eg, gold) against it, it would leave a mark. The color of the mark would tell you how pure that gold was. As a result, the term "touchstone" sued metaphorically meant some way to test how good something was.

Obviously, your immense ignorance also extends to dogs.Dogs do indeed stalk the way cats do. I personally observed our own dog doing it. Looking out the back sliding glass door, I saw him staring intently at the base of the back fence. Then he suddenly lowered completely to the ground in full stalking position and started advancing slowly in full stalk mode. I saw that his target was an older kitten, so I rushed out the door ordering him, "No!" The kitten retreated up the fence while our dog charged and followed the kitten half-way up the fence.I should point out that the sheep dog in the photo that caffeine provided in Message 162 is not stalking, but rather herding sheep (or ducks). Two dogs working a herd will approach in a semi-stalk as shown in order to drive the herd in the desired direction. Then while one keeps them moving, the other will rush to an escape route to block that off.Note that the herding stalk is a modified behavior that violates the rules of an actual stalk. An actual stalk must be stealthy because you are trying to sneak up on the prey until you are close enough to be able catch it in a final sprint. The herding stalk is out in the open and devoid all and any stealthiness; they want the herd to see them coming since the purpose is to trigger the herd's instinct to run away from a predator who is acting uncomfortably like a predator.On the other hand, our dog was engaged in full-stealth full stalking behavior because he was intent on sneaking up on his prey. Like a cat would. Dogs and cats do use the same stalking behavior; we just see cats do it more often. Most cats rely on solitary hunting in which stalking is important whereas canids (not just dogs) normally hunt in packs which requires different tactics, though stalking is still important for closing range and prepositioning for the pack's maneuver. For that matter, lion prides use the same kinds of pack tactics that canids do, so then by your "reasoning" lions are part of your "dog species".I know about dog and cat behavior because I have observed dogs and cats in real life and various canids and felids in countless nature documentaries. Your abject ignorance is evidence that you never have observed dogs or cats or canids or felids. You really do need to learn something about the topics you wish to discuss, especially if you are intent on rewriting all the rules of science as you are doing here.Here's an alternative system you could use, one that is far better than what you have presented here. And it's so simple and straightforward and sensible that even little children (eg, two- or three-year-olds) use it: all quadrupeds are either "doggie" or "horsie". You should adopt it as well, since it's a lot more useful than the nonsense you've been trying to spin here. Really? You're basing your entire overhauling of taxonomy on artists' illustrations?. Absolutely ridiculous! And hypocritical, since so many creationist arguments are based on criticism of artists' illustrations (eg, "Nebraska Man").

No, it is YOUR logic. All we are doing is applying YOUR claims and YOUR new system of taxonomy to the real world. That is called "testing the hypothesis" with the hypothesis being that your new system can actually be used to classify life-forms in a consistent and meaningful manner.Obviously, your new system of taxonomy is a complete and utter failure. We do get the whole picture far better than you. You simply refuse to understand all the conclusions and consequences and problems of your many hare-brained fantasies. And your refusal to test your own ideas or to listen to critiques of them only serves to sustain your self-delusion. Not only should you not be looking in the mirror when you write these things, but you also shouldn't have that other mirror on the opposite wall.

As I described in Message 173, that's a sheep dog using a modified stalking stance in order to make the herd feel threatened enough to start moving or to avoid going in the direction of the dog (eg, when he moves out ahead to block the way that he doesn't want the herd to go). A full hunting stalk would be much closer to the ground and be used to remain hidden during the approach, whereas the sheep dog wants the herd to see him coming from a mile away (though actually they work much closer in than that).There probably aren't many in your neighborhood, but most Scottish highland games include sheep herding (sometimes substituting ducks or geese) demonstrations and even competitions. Now that is a sight to behold! Since sheep herding is not unique to Scotland, I would assume that many local fairs in Europe would also present sheep herding.Note the dog's intensity in that photo. At one demonstration, the announcer pointed that out and told us to imagine trying to keep that intensity locked up in an apartment: disasterously bad behavior just waiting to happen. I have heard of a way for them to work that off, farms that will train your household sheep dog (there are whistle and gesture commands that they need to know) and you can take him there periodically to work and get it out of their system.Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle

I think a better question is why ignore the genomes? Examining and comparing the genomes tells us far more about how closely species (the real definition, not Faith's bastardization) are related and in what ways.Faith entered into this discussion talking on and on about genomes, but now she rejects even considering the genomes. Faith appears to be subject to the "Stan Lee Effect"; Stan Lee interview in The Never Ending Battle, a history of comic books, quoted from memory:

quote:

---

I'm perhaps the least scientific person you could ever meet. I wouldn't know a gamma ray if it came up to me. But when I was looked for an explanation and I heard, "gamma ray", I thought, "Gee, that sounds good." and so I used it.

---

Just now, I found a clip from another related interview which says basically the same thing: STAN LEE - 'SCIENCE' IN THE COMIC BOOK WORLD . I think I captured the meaning.So we see Faith doing the same thing. She wants to sound sciencey so she latches onto some terminology that she thinks sounds sciencey and she uses it. And since she has no understanding of those sciencey words, she ends up misapplying them in the most grotesque manner possible.In that,

I have been right here. Where have you been? Or should I ask in which universe?Yes, you certainly did bring up genomes many times. Until my reply, Message 135, at which point you rejected what the genomes tell us about the relatedness of different species (the real definition of species, not your own bastardization) and dropped genomes altogether in favor of your tunnel-vision focus on general body shape.And make no mistake about it (though you will try to), we are both talking about relatedness. By grouping species into a single "kind", you are implicitly stating that they are related. Furthermore, you are buying into standard YEC claims that the Ark could accommodate all animals because all they had to bring about was a breeding couple of a particular "basic created kind", who then after the Flood rapidly reproduced and even more rapidly evolved into all the species, genera, and higher taxa (details of which depends on which "basic created kind" we examine). Therefore, according to YEC teachings, all species within any given "basic created kind" must be related to each other by virtue of their all being descended from a common ancestor.So you used to all gung-ho about genomes, but as soon as you realized what that meant you dropped genomes like a hot potato and started embracing mere morphology, which BTW completely fails to support your pipe-dream of "basic created kinds."So then, what universe have you been in all this time?