evidence?

Taxonomically speaking, is there any empirical (observational)evidence of one genus evolving into another genus?Thank you.

Hi Lawdog,Not sure if you mean extant organisms or fossil ones. If it's palaeontology you're interestd in, I've got a list knocking around somewhere that has genus - genus transitions. If it is what you're looking for, let me know & I'll dig it up.It's important to remember, that at the end of the day, these are only species transitions, but humans deign them different enough from the previous group to place them into a new taxonomic rank.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Hi Lawdog,To answer your question, there is NO DIRECT OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of one genus evolving into another, Mark24's storytelling aside. In short, Mark24 appears to be lying or at the very least attempting a thinly veiled deceipt, but I wouldn't rule out the direct empirical observation that Mark24 is just ignorant.You asked for Direct Evidence, whereas Mark equivicated Circumstantial Evidence. Non-sequitur. Maybe Mark can clear up the confusion he's imputed into the ether by explaining the difference between Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence and why he thinks his Circumstantial Evidence is more persuasive than the Direct Evidence you asked for?I would, however, enjoy seeing Mark prove one genus evolving into another by his clear and convincing Circumstantial Evidence he's bragging about.Absolutely laughable.

I would say that fossils are indeed observable. Do you disagree?

Data,Please do not feed the trolls. Pricks like "The Truth" do not deserve replies.Mark

Not a troll. Or at least a non-standard one. That's either our old friend Tensai-Appletoast-etc or Jet making his new appearance. My guess would be Tensai-whatever. Note the familiar legalistic jargon used by our favorite troglodyte paralegal.

Quetzal,My guess exactly.Mark

As a fan of primates I resent the implication that Tensai could be as smart as a chimpanzee. But I digress.I'll never understand why people like him think their legal bs is relevant outside of the arbitrary restrictions of the courtroom. Especially given the relatively dismal track record of the legal profession in terms of actually arriving at the truth.

Christians Should Say This...

quote:

---

24) Drink the last beer in the fridge.

​

25) ...and buy natural light to replace it.

---

I hate it when those bible-thumpers drink all my Red Dog! And replace it with Coors!

293) Offer to give them a ride when their car breaks down and then tune the radio to the local Christian station.(Didn't read them all so hoping it's not already in the list. LOL)(Edited to revise number! Doh!)[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-27-2003]

290) Place JESUS SAVES stickers on top of his cars Darwin fish.291) Say that evolution still doesn't explain where comets come from after he refutes all your posts.292) When he asks why God would pay more attention to a bunch of people praying than to just one tell him its the "Mystery of Faith."

Definitely writes like ten-IQ/applehead...guess he had a break from ambulance chasing..

but fossils aren't evidence of evolution, per se. Fossils (and extinction) are evidence of death. Death is not evidence of evolution, per se.I was hoping for some empirical evidence, like a lab test or something, that would show how one genus can become another genus.I don't even know if that is possible in the natural world.

lawdog, The pattern of fossils in the record is evidence of evolution, as is the presence of predicted transitionals. What would it mean if there were such a thing? If over subsequent generations we observed such a level of change in the chemistry of an organism to warrant creating a new taxon, we would still only have observed a speciation. A new phyla might be named, but it's still only a speciation event.There is empirical evidence in the fossil record, you are just unlikely to see it the lab, that's all.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2003]