Missing Link

quote:

---

Macroevolution has not be "observed" at all. Someone just takes the evidence, then they want to believe so badly that it is the proof that they were looking for, that they convince themselves that it IS.

---

Since I used to be a biology major, I read a lot of articles on this issue. Humans have only been looking for definite transition between species the last 100 years or so, comparing to about 4 billion years. So far, we've observed the rise of 1 new species in this life time. I'm still surprised that the info hasn't hit the headline yet.In 1997, they found a completely new species of roddent in Argintina. This new species is called the tetraploidy rat. It has twice as much chromosomal number as the normal rat, and it is bigger, stronger, and faster than the normal rat in that region.The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.This rat, obviously, has a lot of advantages over the native rats in that region. Since they've been around for only a short time, they haven't done much to gain popularity. But some evidence have suggest that they are going outcompete with the local rodents.Again, one example that we can find is pretty impressive for only 100 years of observation, wouldn't you say?

Man, are we desperate here.The tetraploidy rat is considered a whole new species of rodent. It can't mate with normal rats, it doesn't behave like normal rats, and it's biologically different than normal rats.IT'S A NEW SPECIES. Just look in the mirror and tell yourself that over and over. You are bound to understand the concept at some point.I wouldn't be surprised if 200 years from now someone like you will say there is no evidence that some normal rats became this tetraploidy rat, therefore God must have created it 6 thousand years ago.By the way, noone has yet to name this new species for some reason. It is simply known as the tetraploidy rat.Edited: The average size of the tetraploidy rat is almost twice as big as the normal rats. It's huge![This message has been edited by Lam, 04-01-2004]

Crashfrog, I don't think he even knows what the word allele means, based on all of his misconceptions of evolution.Allele: alternate forms of genes.

quote:

---

mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?

---

You really need to read some books before making your assertions.From geological evidence as well as comparasons between the oxygen levels of current atmosphere to 65 million years ago, we know that the oxygen levels were much much higher back then. How can we compare? They've found some ambers with air pockets from those time eras.Although we are not sure whether changing from dino to birds was actually the case, the theory is sound in that bigger wasn't necessarily better anymore. Some scientists think that dinosaurs literally suffocated to death.

quote:

---

The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.
by your own admission, this new specie was a fluke. An accident. Not a specie slowly adapting to its environment. That rat doesnt prove evolution at all. It is an accident, not proof.

---

This is getting quite amusing. Nobody is saying that evolution has to occur because of environmental pressure. Again, you really need to read some books about this before making this assertion.What is it about random mutation that you don't understand????????In other words, if you put a population of fruit flies in a freezer, you are not going to automatically find them "evolve" to withstand the cold temperature. Either there is some kind of "fluke" mutation in some individuals to allow them to withstand the cold, or they will all die.Just tell me what part of random mutation don't you understand?????

quote:

---

About the rat thing being a new species I'm sure you are right about it being a new species, that is if it's true that they found it. In fact we're still finding new species in the depths of the oceans today. The problem with finding a "new" species is that it is...a "new" species. Now if you found a rat with say, a bat wing attached (just an example) THEN you'd have something. Or some "feature" that's giving this rat an advantage in it's environment. But you see, all you have is a big rat that looks like the little rats. See what I'm saying?
Dinosaurs and birds look radically different and while I agree that evolution doesn't claim to make these huge leaps and jumps of change occurring there has to be "something" giving this rat an added feature that, as evolution continues, makes it look a little different. Not just size, speed, hair color etc.

---

I hate to break this "new" information to you, but scientists don't classify a species by their looks, like you bible thumpers do.Genetic testings have been done on this new rat. WE KNOW that the tetraploidy rat came from the normal native rat from these genetic testings. Based on the population calculations and other factors, WE KNOW that they have only been here for a few decades at best.

quote:

---

you are so right. not once have ANY of these people really answered my original question anyways. All they use is circular reasoning and insults.

---

First of all, you can't ask a question "are you still beating your wife?" to a man who never beat his wife in the first place and get a simple "yes" or "no" answer.Your original question was based on grossly biased creationist view of science and evolution. So far, everyone here has been answering your questions to the best of their abilities to make you take a step away from your misinformed mind. You obviously haven't tried to understand our position at all.By the way, it is not an insult if we inform you that you are "ignorant" of this topic. It is like telling a 6 year old that the Earth isn't flat and see him coming back at you saying you've insulted his intelligence.No matter how much we try to tell you that evolution doesn't have purpose, someone still managed to keep asking for the reasons to why a species evolve. Perhaps other people have enough patience to deal with this, but I am having a little trouble dealing with it.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-01-2004]

quote:

---

no my question wasn't answered. They gave some lame excuses, some circular reasoning, said that all species were transitional species, and said, "well i guess that all the fossils must have been destroyed". Then threw in some subliminal insults for dessert.

---

Perhaps you could sum up what we have already presented to you so that we could know that you know that we haven't answered your question(s).

quote:

---

we've been over this before. I KNOW what a transitional is.

---

Care to enlighten us on what your definition of transitional is? I think we have a case of miscommunication here.