Show one complete lineage in evolution

The shark descended from a primitive order of sharks, a long lineage, its beginning predating almost all orders of animals that exist today. Even insects only appeared after the first sharks. Is this truly believable? Or is it pure speculation, a fairy tale or science fiction invented by ambitious scientists?
Firstly, i can see the logic in evolution and how small changes over time can result in a supposedly different species, (meaning they do not mate with each other but can) but to be fair to the Creationists - where is the complete lineage?
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
The so called 'transitional' forms don't prove evolution, perhaps they give evolutionists hope that they are on the right track but that is it!
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers. bear in mind I need to see ancestors that are 'different' not elephants with differerent amount of tusks. e.g show me an elephant ancestor that is very unlike an elephant..
This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence. A few so called 'transitionals' are nothing - you need to have one complete lineage.The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found. This is the ultimate test of any theory in science.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Your post strongly suggests that you are judging the adequacy of the evidence without even a good idea of what evidence actually is known. Not a very good start.Provided you do not demand more than the fossil evidence can reasonably provide there are sequences which seem to fit the bill. One well-known example is horse evolution.This article is 7 years old (and therefore out of date - fossils of previously-unknown species continue to be discovered) but covers the transitionals in the vertebrates.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQIt includes plentiful references for further reading - if you have access to a university library or similar resource.

SkepticTA,This has become my pretty much standard response to the claim that the fossil record doesn't support evolution."Given that the cladograms under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The cladogram is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex cladograms) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value. Assessing Congruence Between Cladistic and Stratigraphic DataStratigraphic Consistency IndexThe SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?"Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these cladograms infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), macroevolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 04:20 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 07-21-2004 09:37 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Why? To convince you? Most scientists seem quite prepared to take the already existing preponderance of evidence as good enough, and much of it is physical evidence. You are proposing a strawman argument with evolutionist saying 'Evolution is true because we have all the fossils showing how elephants evolved from shrews.' which is not an argument I have ever heard put forward as compelling evidence for accepting evolution.Saying that there is no 1 single 'complete' fossil lineage doesn't mean that there is no physical evidence of evolution and certainly doesn't mean that scientists are lying. At the worst all it means is that we don't have fossils showing every transitional stage in any 1 evolutionary lineage, so what? Such a fossil lineage still wouldn't be 'proof' to those who object to evolution on religious grounds.Why do you assume that we should have such a thing? Do you think we have found all the fossils in the earth? Are you certain that at least enough fossils of every stage in such a lineage will exist allowing us to produce one reasonably complete fossil for morphological comparisons? What criteria would you want to distinguish specific 'transitional' fossils. If the elephant 'ancestor' is very unlike an elephant what will make you believe that it is an elephant ancestor? Look up Moeritherium and tell me if it is alike/unalike enough for you.As an addendum, being a different species can also mean not being able to mate with each other, in as much as producing fertile offspring, even if you wanted to.TTFN,WK(fixed UUB by edit, adminNosy)This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-21-2004 09:52 AM

If you disagree with Creationism because it is simply a bunch of counterarguments to the theory of evolution, and you disagree with the theory of evolution because there isn't enough evidence in your opinion, do you have any ideas that explain both the manner in which life forms came to be as they are now and the fact that older fossils are found in lower strata?I think you misunderstand what a transitional organism is. Any fossil whose species later evolved into something else is a transitional organism. We might not find every species of organism that there is to find, but a reason for that is that between any parent and daughter pair of species, there are countless transitionals. You might be able to find some of them, but there is no need to search for all of them.The theory of evolution has stood up for over a hundred years. It is unlikely to change in a fundamental way. Sufficient evidence has been discovered to assume we have it right this time.

StA, do you have birth certificates for everyone in even one line of your ancestry back to the Norman Conquest? Or even to the American Revolution? That's the equivalent of what you're asking for.

Well, so far it has held up to every challenge for 150 years. And every new discovery has supported it and actually strengthened it. So my guess is that it will stand up for a long, long time to come.We do know that right now there is nothing that has been found that does not support the TOE and that there are no other theories that have been presented that have not been falsified.So what would you think might challenge the TOE?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.

---

And criticizing evolution does not prove creationism.

quote:

---

What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!

---

Why should there be? However, we have ample DNA evidence that supports the lineages theorized from the incomplete fossil record. If the lineages were lies then the DNA evidence shouldn't match up. However, lineages derived from fossils and lineages derived from DNA match up.

quote:

---

The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence.

---

The arguments are a direct result of the physical evidence. Nothing in science is theorized without physical evidence. The fossil record is only one source of evidence for evolution, DNA is another deep source for evolution, and current observations of evolutionary mechanisms is another. What you need to show is why independent variables, such as fossils and DNA, keep pointing to the same thing: evoluton.

quote:

---

This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)

---

Why should there be a complete lineage? A very good example of why the fossil record is incomplete is the passenger pigeon. This bird went extinct in the early 20th century. When european settlers first came to north america these birds numbered in the billions. In fact, they were the most populous bird species of their era, no other bird species outnumbered them. Settlers reported seeing flocks that were miles in diameter. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Absolutely zero. The most successful bird species of the last 1,000 years and we have zero fossils to evidence it's being alive. Calculate that into your statistics.

quote:

---

The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence. A few so called 'transitionals' are nothing - you need to have one complete lineage.

---

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10—20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Niet gevonden - Not found

---

Is direct observation physical enough for you?

quote:

---

What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage

---

Excuse me, lying? Show me what scientist has ever said that he has the fossils of each and every generation of a lineage.

quote:

---

There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!

---

And why would we expect there to be? Do you seriously think it's possible for each descendent of an animal to be fossilzed?

quote:

---

The so called 'transitional' forms don't prove evolution, perhaps they give evolutionists hope that they are on the right track but that is it!

---

When you have actually observed evolution happening, it's rather pointless hoping that you are on the right track, isn't it? Rather like accusing Cell Theory proponents to "hope that they are on the right track" after the microscope has been invented.

quote:

---

And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.

---

I agree, Creationism is not science, and critzing it doesn't do anything apart from exposing it as the pseudo-science that it is.

quote:

---

I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers.

---

I challenge anyone to provide me with a complete lineage of humans up until Socrates.

quote:

---

there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)

---

No, there shouldn't be. Only very few animals get fossilzed.

quote:

---

The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence

---

No, the reason why evolution is accepted is because it's "arguments are sound," there is physical evidence (in the form of fossils, biogeography, Genetics etc.) and it has been OBSERVED!

quote:

---

The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found

---

Longer than the Germ Theory of Disease, Cell Theory, and Heliocentrism.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10—20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

---

Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species. It has NOTHING to do with the process of Evolution necessary to create a drastically different species..My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand?The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses..

Did you read the fucking abstract? Just curious, as the article does state that it went from a unicellular organism to a colonial one. That's a pretty drastic change.As a matter of fact, not only did it change into a drastically different species, but a drastically different family, as well, as this summary of the same experiment shows:

quote:

---

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

​

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

---

How you came to the conclusion that this isn't drastic change is simply mind-boggling, assuming you even read the citation. I don't have to have every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to see if it matches the picture on the box, STA.Moreover the expectation that evolution must be "proved" is contrary to the scientific methodology; we're simply saying that evolution is supported by so much evidence that we've provisionally accepted it as the most likely explanation, not that it has been "proved.""Proof" is for alcohol and algebra. It's not what we do in science.

Similar "types" of horses.Ok what is the dividing line between macro and micro (or adaptation) then?Notice I said the line. That is not defined by given extremes like fish and reptile. Where is the dividing line at the point where they are closest together?Reptile and mammal are separated by adaptations or macro changes? How about reptile and bird? What about chimp and man? What about a horse with 3 toes and a horse with one?To get the line made clearer we need to get close indeed. Fox and Wolf? Wolf and Dog? Where is the line? What criteria do you use for distinguishing "types"?

Skeptic, With reference to post 4.Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.The average cladogram in Bentons study has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate.C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodesC(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.5.68*10^323:1568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of 300 cladograms enjoying a 60% corroboration with stratigraphy.That's as close to "proof" as you get in science. Clearly the standard required by you to have every intermediate in a lineage is not necessary. That evolutionary expectations are observed in the fossil record far & above what would be expected by chance "proves" evolution.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Not a drastically different species!?! Going from being unicellular to being multicellular is not a drastic change!?!
Well, I guess you accept human evolution and all other evolution then? After all, apes and humans aren't drastically different. Yes, it does. It's variation that was selected upon by natural selection, which eventually produced not just a new species, but a new family. Well, perhaps because you did not clarify, and since "lineage" means the descendents of an organism, what else is it supposed to mean when you say "complete lineage"? Tells us what you mean when you say "complete lineage" please. No, they are not different types of "horse." While they are related, organisms like Hyracotherium and Parahippus are not "types" of the modern genus Equus, as anyone with even remote competence in taxonomy or equine evolution will tell you.But then again, for you they are probably the same, as you don't seem to see any difference between organism below the family level. If we gave you the skeleton of every generation of humans and chimpanzees up to the point where our ancestors separated, you would probably claim that it is not evolution, since we are both in the family Hominidae, and thus not drastically different species!

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon