"Best" evidence for evolution.

My 2 sense on a quick review ... It isn't ......except that this is accumulated microevolution over several generations, while the standard definition of microevolution is that it is change from one generation to the next (ie - one generation at a time).Likewise the standard definition of macroevolution is that it is microevolution over several generations.Speciation is generally considered the mark of macroevolution because it takes several generations for genetic isolation to develop. Another case of microevolution occurring over several generations ("thirty years") ... ie macroevolution. And yet here are two indisputable cases of genetic isolation developing between their daughter populations ... what are they if not different species, where a species is defined (by science not creationists) as a population capable of interbreeding?Enjoy

Give me the genome of specific animals you want compared.Then find all the genetic differences.Then show that specific mutations from one to the next could not occur.You are the one making the claim that evolution cannot account for these differences.Please show how this is possible. The development of the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear is well documented in the fossil record.Enjoy

Annotated in orange ... epic failure to support your claim. All you have done is assert something without any evidence that it is correct. I could have predicted your response, so it does not surprise me that you avoided answering the questions ... because you don't have those answers.In fact most of your assertion is known falsehoods.We know from the spatial/temporal matrix of fossils in time and space that each step of the process occurred nearby (ie - stayed in place) while changing bit by bit (reptile jaw and ear, double hinged jaw, mammal jaw and ear where the hearing bones get disassociated from the jaw, bones changing size and shape along the way -- ie while the whole transformation of the whole creature gets put together). We also see that each intermediate is a living breathing species, perfectly capable of surviving, reproducing and evolving further. Which ignores completely the arrangement of all known the fossils in their specific locations within the spatial/temporal matrix.Each intermediate fossil shows up within the spatial/temporal matrix of fossils at an intermediate time and in an intermediate location between parent and offspring fossils. Not one of them shows up out of place -- which should be the case if your claim was even partly true.For instance you don't find intermediate fossils for kangaroos in Greenland. According to your assertions there is nothing to prevent that random location - for this and every other instance of intermediate fossils. According to evolution it isn't possible because of descent, parent and offspring have to be close in time and space.You can't explain the sorting of the fossils along paths that show intermediate steps in that location of the world and nowhere else. Evolution does. But we do have a clue, we have many. They are called the genetic clues for the relationships between species, living today and living in the past. That you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.You have no idea how compelling that evidence is, because you are so ignorant of the actual evidence and choose to remain so. You have no idea of the reality you are up against in trying to invent a workable creationist explanation for all the evidence.In science we don't need to prove what happened, we just need to derive the best explanation of the evidence from the evidence. The ToE does that. Creation fails, over and over and over and over.Enjoy

No Faith, as usual you have it backwards. We look at the fossils, and we look at their relative positions in the spatial/temporal matrix.And we ask: what is the best explanation for this group of fossils that are close in time and close in geographical distribution?Can Creation/Flood concepts explain this? No.Can Evolutionary processes explain this? Yes. The changes from one population to the next are minor and well within observed changes in other species, there is time enough for these changes to take place, and they are located within the ecological bounds of each other. None of the changes are impossible creatures.You have no idea how powerful a tool the spatial/temporal matrix is and has been in showing the paths of evolution. With this tool each fossil is like a footprint on a path, not directly connected but located close enough in time and space for them to happen, just as you could trace footprints across the US to connect a person's locations on each coast. We don't have to try to explain how it happened genetically because the fossils provide a complete story, but we also know from the genetics and common ancestry that this is also in the right place at the right time for the development of the mammal genetics. One set of evidence reinforces the other. No, that would be your flood modeling fiascos, and your insistence that it is impossible, while you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support such assertions.Enjoy

We also have hominid feet that are intermediate between these two, many of them. Which is precisely what we would expect if they each evolved from a common ancestor, and as the hominid foot evolved for upright walking.Enjoy

From Message 20 in {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal

quote:

---

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.

​

quote:

---

There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more 'recent' hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).

​

Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).

​

The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important 'Little Foot' specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).

---

​

Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.

​

But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):

​

quote:

---

---

​

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.

​

The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

​

​

Another article on matching footprints to fossils is

​

The Laetoli Footprint Trail: 3D reconstruction from texture; archiving, and reverse engineering of early hominin gait from the University of Liverpool:

​

quote:

---

Human ancestors, or hominins, have been bipedal for at least four and a half million years. The feet of Ardipithecus already show adaptation for a toe-off mechanism that can have little function in other than terrestrial bipedalism.

​

When humans walk normally, the forces they exert against the ground show a characteristic double-humped pattern, ... This is associated with pressure propagating from under the heel, down the lateral side of the foot, and, as the foot everts and pronates, across the ball of the foot to the big toe for push-off. In chimpanzees, the flexed knees and hips characteristic of their bipedal walking lead to a flat force curve, ... This is associated with peak pressure in the midfoot and no push-off from the big toe.

​

Do the 3.6-3.8 mya Laetoli footprints then represent a functionally modern foot, with a fully developed medial arch and eversion/pronation at midstance? ...

​

Others suggest that this footprint is a good match for a reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis foot skeleton.

---

​

Some interesting pictures there too, one with a Australopithecus afarensis skeleton superimposed but not reconstructed like "little foot" although it would better fit the single print above. There seems to be some variation in the footprints, and this leads me to wonder how mobile the toe position was - maybe both are valid?

---

This is from 2008, and there have been several additional fossil discoveries since then that have filled in more intermediates.You will note that the big toe skeletal structure is still quite similar to the chimp foot, which leads to the concept that australopithicus was still adept at tree climbing. That foot was also compared with the laetoli footprints and it fit, with the footprints showing preferred bipedal walking.Again here are the chimp and human foot skeletons from Message 336and "Little Foot" Note the relative lengths of the heel bones, ~1/3rd the footprint, between the lengths seen in the chimp (~1/4th) and human feet (~1/2) of their footprints, while the toe bones shrink in size.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : st

We also have Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi")

quote:

---

Ardi - Wikipedia

​

​

... It is still a point of debate whether Ardi was capable of bipedal movement. Ardi's divergent big toes are not characteristic of a biped.[11] However, the found remains of her legs, feet, pelvis, and hands suggested that she walked upright when on the ground but was a quadruped when moving around trees. Her big toe, for example, spreads out quite a bit from her foot to better grasp tree limbs. Unlike chimpanzees, however, her foot contains a unique small bone inside a tendon which kept the big toe stronger. When seen along with Ardi's other bone structures, this unique bone would have helped her walk bipedally, though less efficient than Lucy.[12] Her wrist bones also provided her with flexibility but the palm bones were short. This suggests that Ardi did not walk on her knuckles and only used her palms to move along tree branches. ...

---

Again the heel bones show slightly more of the footprint than we see in chimps, but less than Austrlopithicus, ie intermediate.Enjoy

And we have Homo habilis feet

quote:

---

The Feet of Homo habilis

​

​

M. Day says this about OH 8: "It is clear from a preliminary examination that the principle affinities of this foot, despite its small size, are with Homo sapiens"
(M. Day 1968, pg 132)

​

Let me make it clear, Day is not saying that OH 8 was a Homo sapien foot. He is saying they are similar.

​

Similar because when you see the picture in Day's book you see that the big toe is in line with the other toes, the way it is in our feet.

​

Here is a picture of OH 8 (Homo habilis)center, compared to the foot of a chimpanzee (left) and a human (right). The bone at the base of the great toe is in line with the others in Homo habilis like it is in modern humans. This helps in walking but not grasping.

​

​

Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 31, No. 3, September 1, 1996 ISSN: 0047-2484 EISSN: 1095-8606 The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis pp. 269-291 (doi:10.1006/jhev.1996.0061) R. S. Kidd*, P. O'Higgins, C. E. Oxnard

---

Again, the amount of the footprint occupied by the tarsal bones would be intermediate between chimp and human (comparing the length of the middle metatarsil to the rest of the heel length).EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The point is that there are intermediate hominid fossils that show intermediate development of the human foot compared to the chimp foot.As a way of actually measuring this we can compare the length of the middle metatarsal to the length of the heel portion of the foot from the end of the heel bone to the joint with the metatarsal, this is the foot pad bone structure and includes the tarsal bones, and is the main weight bearing area of the foot. This picture shows them labeled for reference: Here you can see the middle tarsal bone is about 2/3rds of the heel/metatarsal pad length.In the human foot it is less than that, and in the chimp foot it is more than that.The three hominid feet that I found were various intermediate lengths between the chimp foot and the human foot with the older metatarsals being comparatively longer than the later ones.Clearly evolution can make these changes.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : finishedEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Yes you are going to get lambasted for you blind denial and evasiveness. Bones that all came from the same location in a carefully detailed archeological dig, in close proximity to one another. Bones that fit together at the joints just like your bones fit together at the joints. Bones not mixed with any other bones.You want to believe they were carefully selected from many different digs and artfully constructed into a fake skeleton, by people who are intentionally making a fraudulent skeleton, because you can't accept reality. What you expect has no bearing on reality. Anything between A and B is intermediate -- ie transitionsal. "A bit smaller a bit tighter" IS intermediate, as the human foot is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the chimp foot: The changes in the relative lengths of the foot pad structure of heel bone and tarsal bones to the lengths of the metatarsal and the phalanges shows steady change from similar to chimp to similar to human.Each stage is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the previous stage. That's what intermediate means.Again it seems that you can't handle the truth.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

See if this image helps for bone definitions: What I have been calling the foot pad area is the hindfoot plus the midfoot. The forefoot is composed of the metatarsals and the phalanges. Phalanges are not always found with fossils, so metatarsal lengths compared to the lengths of hindfoot plus midfoot are a useful metric.Comparing this foot to a chimp foot, the most striking differences are that midfoot is longer, the phalanges are shorter and the metatarsals and phalanges are straighter. Also the big toe bones are more robust on the human foot compared to the chimp foot. Note that these differences are relatively minor and easily within the realm of evolutionary changes, such as the differences seen in dog bones for instance.We can see intermediate lengths and curvature in the "little foot" fossil (Australopithicus) And in this 3-way comparison of chimp, Australopithicus and human: which also shows intermediate hip bones.We also have Homo naledi (another hominid) feet which are very similar to Homo sapiensAnd we have this direct comparison of phalange curvature: There are more if one digs for them.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added 3way pic

Except, as you have been told so many times, it's not just mutation but selection. Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next. The "trial" is surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over. There are no "similar staged changes all over the body" that need to occur. Each mutation stands or dies on its own by surviving to breed and pass on the mutation/s to the next generation, where it all starts over.You can have hands evolving separately from feet, leg bone lengths evolving separately from arm lengths and body size. The only criteria is that the individual survives and breeds to pass on the changes to the next generation.In fact evidence shows this to be the case, with some traits occurring at different times than other traits. Such as bipedal gait before hand and foot shape before skull size increase. Are fossils that show mutations from a parent population that are passed on to offspring that undergo further mutation and selection. It's a continuous process. And yet we can show many intermediates evolving between ape and human being ... doesn't that mean that human beings are part of the "built-in genetic variations of the" ape genome ... if your view is correct? It isn't, but for the sake of this argument we can assume it is: if we can show the same kind of "built in genetic variations" see in dogs -- slight changes in size, slight changes in shape, changes caused by interruption of development (HOX gene) say in dog skulls (ie - bull dog vs collie), etc -- then doesn't that mean we have "built in genetic variations" going from ape to human?Compare a human child with a chimp child and they are more similar than some dog breeds. The major differences notable in the heads of adults occur through development after birth.But evolution has an advantage over your concept: it can add genetic variation with random mutations, while your concept is stuck with an (albeit totally unknown, because you can't elaborate why) limited number of "built in" variations (how many? where are they built in? where are they hiding?).Evolution is only limited by survival and breeding.That is why evolution will always be a better explanation than your concept.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

My 2 sense worth ... Each of us carries hundreds of mutations our parents did not have. They are either beneficial, neutral, or mildly harmful (such as a predisposition for cancer). One generation, one "trial" ... Yep, going on now in every individual in the (very large) breeding population. We are also seeing large changes in our ecology due to our habit of cutting down trees and digging up ores, burning fossil fuels that alter the atmosphere, etc. so mutations that may have been neutral or mildly harmful may be more beneficial than previously.Remember, the "trial" is to survive and breed. Any existing mutations that are passed to the next generation have done that and passed the trial. Nope. This is where you go wrong. There is no goal other than survival and breeding, that is all that is required. The conditions for this change with the ecological changes, but the goal to survive and breed remains the only goal necessary for evolution. Any individual that survives and breeds obviously has a "coherent phenotype" so that is irrelevant. Nope. All you need is divergent evolution between two breeding populations such that they don't interbreed. That of course uses the scientific definition of speciation, not the Monty Python "and now for something completely different" definition. According to your erroneous definition/s of species, but not according to science. You could, but it would be pointless, being based on a false precept, that there is more than survival and breeding involved. Except that it is observed, a fact you try to get around by saying that it is "normal variation in a species" while ignoring the science.Nor have you in any way demonstrated that "It can't be." Except those hundred of new mutations in each individual resupplies genetic variability, as you have been told hundreds of times. The genome "has instructions" for new individuals to survive and breed, mutations alter some of these "instructions" and they are tested by survival to breed. Those that pass become part of the genome for the next generation, which is slightly different from the one before. This process is repeated every generation. Except you have not demonstrated it is impossible, rather you have demonstrated denial and denial generated ignorance of how evolution actually works, and how it succeeds every generation.Speciation is something that happens, not because there is a goal, but because the population genome is constantly changing with every generation and the ecology that "tests" the population for survival and breeding is constantly changing, especially when populations divide into two or more different ecologies.Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : st

All evolution is done by microevolution because it occurs in breeding population. It is not possible to happen in dead populations, or ones that have not yet been conceived. each generation is composed of individuals being tested for survival and reproduction.Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically.You want something completely different? Wait. It takes generations of accumulated small non-lethal changes that generation by generation pass the survival/reproduction test.The question for you: how do you define completely different in a way that can be scientifically determined.You’ve never done this, and I doubt you know how.Enjoy

Well I've been trying to understand for a couple years now, and I have a feeling that if one logged all the claims and sorted them, one would find inconsistencies and contradictions, as each argument she makes addresses only part of the issues at a time. Or what I call a "Monty 'and now for something completely different' Python's change. (you had to watch the show). Yes, the only thing that comes close is polyploidy sudden speciation, more common in plants, but known in mammals.But even here the creationist complaint, as we get for all observed speciation events, is that it still isn't enough change to be macroevolution. I tried to address this on EvC Forum: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?. Faith made 219 posts on that thread that you can review here: Faith's Postsenjoy