"Best" evidence for evolution.

Yes, of course, just as you say: "... evolution, which is real and proven, ..."But then you balk at human evolution. Why? You're sounding like Bill Murray in "Ghostbusters" when he warns that they must not allow the streams to cross. Why not? He never ever says, but only says that it's really, really bad -- FWIW, it took me more than 20 years to finally get that joke through a scene at the end of Europa, Europa.So then, evolution is real and proven. Which is true! Evolution is really nothing special, but rather is just the natural consequence of life doing what life does. Reproducing, surviving, and reproducing. No special forces, no special processes, just life doing what life naturally does.Humans do what humans naturally do. Humans are yet another example of life doing what life naturally does. So why should human evolution be anything different from the evolution of any other species? IOW, what exactly and precisely is the problem that you have with human evolution that you do not have with the evolution of every other species on earth? Especially given that there are so many more of them than there are of us.Nuh?

Sorry, but you have rendered all of that completely meaningless by your senseless and contrary-to-reality gross redefinition of "species", making it mean nothing.Remember that by your redefinition, all trilobites are of the same species. No, they're not. Rather, all trilobites are of the same class, which is a higher taxon. Here's the Linnean classification system: The trilobite class, Trilobita, breaks down into eleven (11) orders: Agnostida, Asaphida, Corynexochida, Harpetida, Nectaspida, Redlichiida, Lichida, Odontopleurida, Phacopida, Proetida, and Ptychopariida. Each order breaks down into several families; eg, Asaphida contains the six (6) families Anomocaroidea, Asaphoidea, Dikelokephaloidea, Remopleuridoidea, Cyclopygoidea, and Trinucleioidea. Each family breaks down into several genera (plural of genus) and, in turn, each genus breaks down into several species.Since your pontifications about whether species-to-species evolution has been observed are rendered absolutely meaningless by your having rendered the term "species" meaningless. By having destroyed your usage of the term "species" you have rendered all your statements about species to nothing but mindless blatherings of blythering nonsense.

So then since humans are so much more closely related to chimpanzees than the different higher tax of trilobites were related to each other, then your redefinition of species should have you declaring that humans and chimpanzees are of the same species.The fact remains that you have completely destroyed your own usage of "species", thus destroying any and all statements that you make regarding species. You have made all of them complete and utter nonsense.

Wrong! I and the rest of us here use the standard meaning for "species" in order to make meaningful statements about species.You completely redefined "species" to destroy the ability to make any any meaningful statements at all.When you use the word "species", you are clearly not saying the same thing as everybody else. You are attempting to deceive us into thinking that you are talking about the same thing as we are, which you are not. We are not so easily deceived.Instead of engaging in such gross dishonesty, why don't you just use a different term for your nonsensical idea? I'll even offer you one: "kerplopplop." So whenever you want to use your nonsensical redefinition of "species", just use the word "kerplopplop" instead.So, do we see kerplopplop-to-kerplopplop transitions? No, not that we can tell. But what would a kerplopplop-to-kerplopplop transition look like? Who the hell knows? Only you have any insight into your bag-of-cats mind and I'm sure that even you get lost there.If you are going to discuss scientific concepts, then use proper scientific terminology properly. If you are going to spout nonsense, then come up with and use your own nonsensical words.

Why are you talking about "trial and error" when Meddle and Sarah Bellum are talking about evolution? Don't you understand how evolution works?Here's an analogy. A person navely believes that television works like live stage performances work, by having actual people inside the box acting out all the action. That's not so far-fetched, given the many comedy sketches (including one by Monty Python) of a TV with a live person inside the box. Based on that misunderstanding of how TV works, that person decides and declares that it is impossible for TV to work. Never mind everybody else's repeated attempts to explain to that person how television actually works. Never mind that anyone can see for themselves that television does indeed actually work. Nope, that person refuses to accept that television could ever possibly work because he has used his gross misunderstanding to "soundly" refute television for all time.Now, if you could explain in sufficient detail how you imagine the evolution of a four-chamber heart from a 3-1/2-chamber heart would have to occur, then perhaps we could have a meaningful discussion. We have certainly tried to describe our understanding to you, though all in vain. You have yet to describe your misunderstanding to us, so we can have no idea how you could have arrived at your false conclusions.

But of course. It's so obvious.This is from my page, The Bullfrog Affair. It generally covers creationist claims about interspecies protein comparisons using Duane Gish's infamous deliberate lie on national TV about a protein that shows humans and bullfrogs to be more closely related (HINT: no such protein exists and Gish's attempts to cover up his lie are telling). This excerpt is the start of that story (disclaimer: formatting is poor, because it's a repost of my contribution to a CompuServe library, so I was restricted to strictly ASCII):

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!"

---

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."Later on that page I give Gish's response on that same PBS show (ie, on national TV):

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.

---

And so the investigation started. After the publication of this story (one of my sources for this page), false creationist claims would be met with catcalls from the audience of "Bullfrog!"Also on this page is the story of Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim. I consider this as a deliberately crafted creationist lie because of how very carefully and exactly the claim needs to be stated in order to remain technically true and how quickly Brown acted to cover it up.The rattlesnake protein claim made use of Dayhoff's mid-60's comparison of cytochrome c between 47 different species, which did not include chimpanzees. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later comparisons of human and chimpazee cytochrome c showed them to be identical, zero differences.

That's the only way to be sure that you've killed the zombie.

Is that what you think evolution is? Despite years of us trying in vain to explain it to you? And you still have learned nothing?If you are going to evaluate some system, then you had damned well better learn something about it! If you refuse to learn anything about a system that you evaluate, then your evaluation of it is pure crap!Except that that is not at all how it works! As has been explained to you repeatedly for years! And you still refuse to learn anything!Because it is pure crap!And the reason why it's pure crap is because you have never learned how evolution works, how features would have evolved, and you persistently refuse to learn. And what would that actually take? What would it take to turn one ventricle into two? Of course, I'm making a very big assumption that you have the most basic understanding of cardiac anatomy, an assumption which is undoubtedly wrong.Anatomically, what is the primary difference between a heart with a single ventricle and two ventricles? The answer is a septum, a membrane dividing the two. Furthermore, the best example of a true three-chamber heart with a single undivided ventricle is found in amphibians, because in reptiles we find the beginnings of a division between the two sides of the ventricle. Turtles have a muscular ridge which divides the ventricle very early in the ventricular contraction. Adults of the species of Crocodilia have a four-chambered heart (if anyone knows of Crocodilia species with the more standard 3-and-a-half chambers, please point them out), but biologists and zoologists have pointed out that their young hatch with 3.5 chambers and develop into 4 chambers as they grow, without missing a beat. And as Meddle pointed out, the human fetus starts with three chambers which develops into four chambers towards the end of gestation; ie, the septum grows and closes up.So again: Just what does it take to change a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered? Or have you never ever given it any thought? We have. Why haven't you? You almost start out in the right direction, but then you veer off straight into the weeds yet again. How sadly typical.You start off by finally understanding that your idea of an overloaded genome is wrong and that genomes change though other mechanisms such as mutation. But then you get lost again.First, do you even understand what mutations are, what kinds there are, and what their effects are? No, I didn't think so. Suffice to say that we are only speaking of genetic mutations that are heritable (since only they can be involved in evolution) and which can express as a difference in the phenotype.Second, how many mutations are needed to change the phenotype? The effects are not necessarily proportional in that a small change in the genotype can express as a large change in the phenotype (as you would have learned if you had followed AnswersInGenitals' suggestion in Message 218 to read about hyperdactyly, but of course you refused to for fear of learning something). If an organism with a 3.5-chamber heart already had a rudimentary septum, then how much of a mutation would it need to complete the growth of that septum? Probably not much at all.Third, what kind of changes do you envision (or rather have not bothered to even think about yet)? Are you thinking of a completely new and novel organ? Wrong! Are you thinking of a complete and novel reorganization of an existing trait? Wrong! If instead you thought of a minor change in an existing organ or trait, then you would finally be getting back on track.The changes needed to go from a 3.5-chamber heart to a 4-chamber are almost trivial. Doesn't take much, which would be obvious to anyone who has ever given it much thought. Which you obviously haven't, but we have.Fourth, you are wrong to say that those changes would not get us anywhere near the result. We are already near the result! Evolution works in small steps, not huge leaps: Natura non salta! ("Nature does not leap!"). It was the saltationists arguing for the sudden appearance of new and novel features that forced Darwin into a position of fairly strict gradualism (despite knowing that the rate of evolutionary change can change, the "new discovery" of punctuated equilibria).Instead, the trait is already close, so the amount of change needed to complete the new trait is not that much. Everybody who has any understanding of evolution and how it works knows that already. But since you don't know anything about evolution, you don't know that. 
Indeed, your emphasis on the non-evolutionary model of "trial and error" and "bazillions of tries" (no such number exists ; refer to my page, Number Names) tells us that your misunderstanding of evolution is far worse.Please read my pages, MONKEY and MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS) (they are a pair: Monkey explains my experiment while MProbs explains why it works). Basically, when I read Richard Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program in The Blind Watchmaker, I could not believe it so I tried it myself -- since he didn't give a program listing (probably written in BASIC), I used his description as the specification for my own program, MONKEY (in honor of Eddington's model infinite monkeys typing Hamlet -- refer to the Internet The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS), RFC 2795), which I implemented in Turbo Pascal. That worked so incredibly well and quickly (compiled Pascal is much faster than interpreted BASIC) that I still could not believe it. So I analyzed the probabilities involved (and wrote that analysis up in MProbs) and finally understood why it was virtually impossible for it to fail (SPOILER: the probability of every single parallel attempt always failing becomes vanishingly small). I uploaded it to a CompuServe library where for the next half decade that I remained on that service it continued to be downloaded at least once for each and every month. On a web page collection of all such WEASEL programs, mine was rated as being most faithful to the original (small wonder, since the original was my specification). And all creationist attempts I've seen to "refute" WEASEL relied on adding features (eg, "locking rings") that did not exist and certainly do not exist in mine.WEASEL was so named because it would produce a single line from Hamlet in which the characters look for shapes in clouds: "Methinks it is like a weasel." That reference is why I named mine MONKEY, which I chose to produce the English alphabet in alphabetical order (though I provide the option to enter your own choice of target string).Dawkins wrote WEASEL to illustrate one of his points, the difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection:

• Single-step Selection. You make repeated attempts to get the end result all in one giant saltation. If you fail, then you start over completely from scratch. Any "close but not quite" outcomes are lost.
  ​
  The probability of this method succeeding is abysmally small. In MPROBS I calculated that probability to be about 1.6244×10^-37. Then I calculated the number of attempts you needed to attain one change in a million; it turns out that if you ran this on a supercomputer capable of a million attempts per second, it would take about 10,000 times longer than an estimate age of the universe of 20 billion (20×10⁹) to have just one chance in a million of success. IOW, abysmally small.
  ​
  When creationists advance probability arguments against evolution, this is the kind of selection that they try to saddle evolution with. But this is not the kind of selection that evolution uses, nor does it have bearing on how life even works.
  ​
• Cumulative Selection. Here, you create a population of possible solutions. You rate them all and select the one that comes closest to the final result, then you use that one to generate the next population, with each new possible solution differing by a single random letter placed in a random position. Rinse and repeat until you arrive at the target solution.
  ​
  The probability of this method succeeding is virtually inevitable. For it to fail, every single new string in every single generation would need to fail, which becomes vanishingly small so as to become virtually impossible. When I ran it on my IBM XT clone (Norton Index of 2) it would succeed consistently in less than a minute (depending on the population size I would select; the smaller the population size the longer it would take). Now when I run it on a new Windows box (about 1000 times faster) it appears to succeed instantaneously, so in order to watch it work I have to choose a small population size.
  ​
  This is the kind of selection that evolution uses and which is based on how life works. This has led me to a basic definition of evolution as "the results of life doing what life does."

 
So, Faith, when you go on about "trial and error" and "bazillions of tries", you are obviously using single-step selection. We know that that is not in any way how life works and hence is not in any way how evolution would work.Because of your gross misunderstanding of evolution using your abysmally bad single-step selection, you fool yourself into the false belief that evolution could not possibly work. Which we can clearly see is not the case.So by not having learned what evolution is nor now it works, you have fooled yourself into filling your head with pure crap. We have and, as a result, we have learned much and have gained a good understanding of many things.You have not thought it through and, as a result, your head is filled with pure crap. Only when you finally learn something and stop spouting pure crap.

jar was not "speaking in abstract generalizations", but rather describing the basics of what evolution is and how it works.Yet again you demonstrate that you have no clue what evolution is and hence no clue how it works. And despite years of our repeated efforts to explain to you what evolution is and how it works (the most recent effort being jar's to which you are "replying"), you steadfastly refuse to ever learn anything. As a result of your willful ignrunce, your head is filled with pure crap. And as a result, every time you "evaluate evolution" using that pure crap in your head, everything you have to say on the matter is nothing but pure crap.If you never learn anything about evolution, then you can never possibly oppose it effectively.From the index page of the creation/evolution section of my site, here are brief statements of my position:

quote:

---

From the start, my approach has been to examine and critique creationist claims. My position is that:

• If you want to oppose evolution, then you need to do so honestly and truthfully.
• Using false and deceptive claims must be avoided because of the damage that that does to your cause, which I assume to be The Cause of Christ.
• Using false and deceptive claims both drives away potential converts (especially those with any knowledge of science and hence can readily see how bogus your claims are, so you just gave them very good reasons to reject your religion from this point on) and entraps believers into a vicious circle of lies that will either corrupt them morally or eventually destroy their faith.
• You also need to learn as much as you possibly can about actual science, including evolution. Going to war against an enemy (as you are warring against evolution) without knowing anything about that enemy will lead you to defeat, so it is in your own best interest to learn all that you can learn (HINT: not from creationist sources, since they will only feed you misinformation).

---

Later I word it more succinctly:

quote:

---

If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right! Learn everything you can about evolution and then attack it, not some shtupid strawman caricature of it. And do so honestly and truthfully!

​

By refusing to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but rather using "creation science" instead, you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot, dooming your cause to failure and your followers to losing their faith.

---

Faith, you steadfastly refuse to learn anything about actual science, including evolution. You persist in using false and deceptive claims. You refuse to act honestly and truthfully.You are a prime example of the worst characteristics of creationists. You are the wicked fruit which exposes your religion as the wicked tree that Jesus called to be chopped down and thrown into the fire as per the Matthew 7:20 Test.

You've already made your point. Your point is pure crap because it is based completely on pure crap. What the hell does trial and error have to do with anything? We are talking about evolution while you are talking about anything but evolution.As I have already explained to you in Message 249, evolution is not trial and error nor does evolution use trial and error. Your persistent misrepresentions are completely false and are nothing but attempts at deception.Trial and error is based on single-step selection in which a single huge step is attempted by a single individual which either completely succeeds or completely fails. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how evolution works, nor even with how life itself works -- a working definition of evolution would be "the results of life doing what life does."Instead, evolution and life itself use cumulative selection, which involves the accumulation of small steps taken by populations of individuals -- at the very least learn that populations evolve, not individuals.The probability of cumulative selection succeeding is virtually certain (ie, approaching 100%) whereas the probability of single-step selection is virtually impossible (ie, approaching 0%). I worked all that out in my MPROBS page, so go back and read it again before you try to "refute" it -- you will need to show where the math is wrong.I've already explained all that to you in Message 249. Go back and reread it, but this time try to understand what I'm explaining to you.For that matter, if you truly believe in your position, then you must describe it in sufficient detail listing all your assumptions and describing step by step how you reach your conclusions by showing the math!No, that is not the case as AnswersInGenitals pointed out with his examples of hyperdactyly and cor triatriatum which are big changes in the phenotype caused by single mutations. I also explained that to you in Message 249. Go back and reread it, but this time try to understand what I'm explaining to you.BTW, I just added a link for "phenotype", because I just realized that you most likely also have no clue what that word means. It's basic knowledge, but you have so often displayed complete ignrunce of very basic knowledge (eg, that hotels and restaurants charge for their services as in the case of Trump's corrupt use of his golf resorts to funnel government money into his own pocket) so we can never assume anything with you. That is yet another reason why you must reveal to us all the assumptions that you are using. Well, we do not like falsehoods, deception, and crap. Since that's all that your arguments are, what's there to like?

No, rather it is inevitable. Because that is how life works and what life does! That's reality!We normals cannot understand why you hate reality so very much. Maybe you've been bitten by reality. That's understandable since reality does have a history of biting people who get lost inside of their own delusions and nonsensical fantasies. But when reality bites, it's not because it's mean, but rather that it's trying to wake you up. So wake up already!First, trial and error is not the only possibility, not by a long shot. You keep forgetting about evolution. Despite the nonsensical crap inside your head which prevents you from starting to learn from our repeated attempts to teach you, evolution is not trial and error, not even close.Second, just using actual words to express nonsense does change that nonsense into anything different (eg, something that does make sense). Nonsense remains nonsense, especially your kind of contrary-to-reality nonsense.So in an attempt at honesty (like reality, that's another foreign concept to you), you should reword your nonsense with nonsensical words; correcting your sentence: "That is why I'm saying all you've got to get from kerplopplop to kerplopplop is kerflooey."There, now your nonsense is clearly marked as being nonsense. Who's talking about predicting how useful a mutation would be? It would require far more knowledge than we have acquired so far in order to predict what kinds of physical effects a particular genetic change would have -- VOCABULARY LESSON for Biology 101: the genotype is an individual organism's genetic "stuff", the phenotype is an individual organism's physical characteristics which are the expression of its genotype, and mutations are one form of change in the genotype.However, we can find mutations that have happened in the past and can see after the fact what effects those mutations had had on the phenotype. Furthermore, we can also see after the fact whether those mutations had proven useful (ie, beneficial), deleterious (ie, harmful), or neutral (eg, changes in the phenotype that didn't make any difference, mutations that didn't change the phenotype).We can also study after the fact the effects of past mutations on the species' genome (eg, allele frequencies) which would be how we'd determine whether a given mutation was beneficial or not. In doing so, we have to take into account that part of evolution that you keep ignoring: selection. Most mutations would be neutral on their own, such that it is through the organism's phenotype's interaction with its environment that actually determines whether that mutation was beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.Also keep in mind the ultimate form of selection. If a mutation negatively impacts the viability of the organism, then that would be that. We keep hearing the figure of 50% of all zygotes (Biology VOCAB: fertilized egg) with an unviable genotype which causes them to either spontaneously abort or fail to sprout -- that's why when you plant seeds you put in a few seeds at a time. That would also tend to account for most of the deleterious mutations, so that we will see fewer in adult organisms.Furthermore, we also understand the different kinds of mutations, including how they occur and what kinds of effects they can have.We can perform statistical analysis based on all those studies to arrive at the probabilities of the different kinds of mutations happening. So we can still have a fairly good idea of what we can expect.Of course, you don't know anything about any of that. Which is why all you can come up with is crap. But if you were to at least try to learn, then you could improve.And you keep leaving out evolution. Evolution is real and integral to how life works. You cannot just ignore it and wish it away like you try (and fail) to do with reality. It's still there and it's still working. Uh, the "genetic stuff" is what the genome is made of.You really need to learn something. The genome is the collective description of a species' genotypes, whereas the genotypes are what each individual's "genetic stuff" is. So then, yes, each genotype is a variation on the genome.So what's your point? Outside of some nonsensical crap that you will make up. No, rather cumulative selection describes how life works. But since you hate reality so much that you live in a fantasy universe constructed of delusion and pure crap, you don't know that.Populations contain individuals who are very similar to each other, but also different. Each generation spawns offspring who are very similar to their parents yet also slightly different. Those individuals who are better able to survive and reproduce have their genotypes better represented in the next generation -- that better representation would be due to their phenotypes being selected for. The result over generations would be a population that is better adapted to its environment. And when that environment changes out from under them (or the population migrates into a new environment), then selective pressure would be for phenotypes that are better adapted to that new environment.That is how life works. And it has nothing at all to do with your kerflooey (what you call "trial and error"). Selection is very powerful, especially cumulative selection. Mutation and other mechanisms (eg, recombination) increase the genetic variability of the population and selection filters out the less fit characteristics. The two working together is very basically how evolution works. And it is what life does.You keep ignoring evolution, but it isn't going to go away. You need to at least learn something about it.Edited by dwise1, : Removed typo of extra "not": ""First, not trial and error is not the only possibility, not by a long shot." should be "First, trial and error is not the only possibility, not by a long shot."

No assumption needed. Just look at the evidence. Go to practically any public university library and read the scientific journals which describe actual fossils in great detail. Even an honest (very important requirement) creationist can plainly observe how the mammalian jaw and ear would have evolved from the reptilian. It's all laid out in great detail.

quote:

---

Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle. They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint--the mammalian joint. Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon--those familiar sail-winged animals from your childhood dinosaur set--had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile's jaw hinge. The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile's jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones. By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small. The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile's jaw. It's malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw. By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile's jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become the malleus and incus, and are functioning as parts of the mammal's ear.

---

An honest creationist did go to his local state university library and did that research. His next questions were why God would have created all those intermediate transitional forms for no reason whatsoever.A dishonest creationist (which describes most creationists) would not even bother to look. You are emulating your Idol (Trump) by projecting your own issues onto others in order to falsely accuse them of wrongdoing.You just "know" that evolution is impossible, so you deny that it could possibly happen. That is a true example of Begging the Question. As a result of steadfastly ignoring the copious evidence, you can create your deception and never have to face the fact that your pontifications are complete contrary to reality.----------------------"Eppur si muove!" ("And yet it does move!") -- Galileo Gallilei

What the hell are you talking about? What is your misunderstanding of evolution? How do you think that evolution would have to occur? That is very important for all of us, including you, to know because that is what your assertions are all based on and if they're completely wrong then your conclusions will be completely worthless.For a working example, let's say that there's a physical change that requires six genetic mutations: A, B, C, D, E, and F.Why would the necessary mutations have to be in a single possible sequence (AKA your "right sequence")? Why would A have to happen before B and not the other way around. The only mutations where that would be necessary would be base substitutions or codon insertions/deletions in a duplicated sequence, such that the duplication would have to have happened first, but in most situations there is no "right sequence" involved. It would be like insisting that a cake recipe could not possibly work if you obtained the ingredients outside the "right sequence"; all that's required is that you have all the ingredients together in the end.And what's this "at the right time" nonsense? Mutations can be acquired at any time with most of them being neutral for many generations. Are you thinking that they all have to happen in a single generation? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would you think such a thing?For that matter, do you think that there has to be a sudden massive single-step change within a single generation from Form A (eg, chimp foot) to Form B (eg, human foot)? That is saltation which is the opposite of evolution -- Natura non salta! (Lat. "Nature does not make leaps!"). Is that how you think it must work? Well, that isn't how it works, never has been, never will be.And as for the characteristics of the rest of body also evolving, yes, they are, even when they're not changing (evolutionary processes also cause stasis, so evolution never stops). But all changes do not happen at the same time, nor is there any reason for them to. That's how you can get "chimerae" like Archaeopteryx in which (comparing 27 features of birds, Archaeopteryx, and Coelurosaurs) we find:

• In two features, all three groups were the same (eyes having sclerotic ring and scapulae having same shape).
• In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]).
• In 17 other features, Archaeopteryx is different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs (femur, fibula, sternum, ribs, gastralia, cervical vertebra type, caudals, vertebral column, humerus, ulna, carpometacarpus, teeth, palate, snout (instead of a beak), occipital condyle and foramen magnum, anteorbital and external mandibular skull openings, and external nostril openings near the tip of the snout (instead of near the eyes).
• In 6 other features, Archaeopteryx is intermediate between birds and Coelurosaurs; those features are:
  • Metatarsals -- Partly fused
  • Bones -- Hollow, not pneumatic
  • Coracoids -- Wider, rounded, fused to scapula
  • Pelvis -- Unfused, simple, triradiate. Pubis slightly forward-projecting
  • Orbits -- Smaller. Bony surround complete (?)
  • Braincase -- Moderately expanded fusion less complete

So then, not all characteristics change at the same time nor at the same rate! If you think that they have to, then you are wrong yet again.This is why we keep asking you how you think evolution is supposed to work. And because you refuse to ever tell us that, we are left having to constantly ask you just what the hell you are talking about. Complete and utter nonsense! "half a human foot and nothing else" WHAT THE F*CK!?!?! You have lots of 'splainin' to do about that particular piece of crap. It's "gems" like that which prove conclusively to us that you have no clue whatsoever about evolution.As a result of the behavior change to walking upright, the "chimp" foot (actually, the foot of the common ancestor between chimps and humans) would change over many generations. These changes would be the lengths and subtly in their orientation with each other, but all the bones would still be present every single generation, every single step of the way. There would never a situation of half a foot and nothing else! There would always be a complete foot, just slightly different from the previous generation's foot. Uh, no, not necessarily. Different parts can evolve at different rates; remember Archaeopteryx?Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) was bipedal though not completely human-like. Still their foot was very similar to the human foot, much closer to the human foot than to the chimp foot. Their pelvis was strongly intermediate, which affected their gait -- in comparing chimp, australopithecine, and human pelvises from two distinguishing angles, you could identify the pelvis as chimp or human from both angles, but from one angle the australopithecine pelvis had the human characteristic and from the other angle it was definitely chimp. And of course the cranial development was pretty much the last "human" characteristic to evolve, long after the feet and pelvis had completed their evolution.So your baseless assertion is complete nonsense and contrary to reality. Furthermore, there is no possible mechanism for forcing all characteristics to evolve in lock-step at exactly the same rate. And there's that nonsense again! What the f*ck are you talking about? 
If you are going to try to deal with evolution, then please at the very least learn something about it first!

Still no response from you about your abject and gross misunderstanding of evolution (Message 337). Learn something about biology. Learn something about genetics. Learn something about mutations. Learn something about evolution.With such gross ignurnce of evolution et alles that you continue to display, none of your bald assertions can possibly have any meaning. And until you describe to us step by step in detail how you think evolution is supposed to work (ie, your misunderstanding that you base all your bald assertions and conclusions on), we can have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

duplicateEdited by dwise1, : duplicate of Message 353