Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

Hi again Kaichos Man It's rather implicit in rule 6:

quote:

---

6. ... If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

---

There are lots of people that read these threads even thought they don't reply. I often don't reply to threads when other people are saying the things I would say, as that would only clutter up the thread and overload posters with many replies to the same post. I'm sure you've experienced this. Yes. The time scale is different and the type of adaptation is different.Ecotypic variation occurs during the development of individual organisms in response to ecological factors, like pressure, salinity, temperature, average amounts of light, food availability, etc etc etc. In a different ecology they would develop differently.Whereas "clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients" occur over generations and involve genetic adaptation:Cline (biology) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In biology, an ecocline or simply cline (Greek: κλίνω = to possess or exhibit gradient, to lean) describes an ecotone in which a series of biocommunities display continuous gradient.[1] The term was coined by the English evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley in 1938.

​

More technically, clines consist of ecotypes or forms of species that exhibit gradual phenotypic and/or genetic differences over a geographical area, typically as a result of environmental heterogeneity. Genetically, clines result from the change of allele frequencies within the gene pool of the group of taxa in question.[2][3][4] Clines may manifest in time and/or space.[5]

​

In ecology, spatial clines have led to gradient analysis where the abundance and distribution of organisms is rendered by sinusoidal curves on the plane. From these curves can be extracted that populations occupy zones of maximum and minimum presence, according to their special needs and tolerances imposed by their environment.[6]

​

Typically, a well-marked cline does not allow for a delineation of subspecies, as it is then impossible, by definition, to draw any further clear dividing lines between populations. In population genetics, a cline could include a spectrum of subspecies, as allele and haplotype frequencies tend to vary over a larger space; moreover, in evolution, genetic lineage sorting usually lags behind the establishment of locally-differentiated phenotypes. Regardless, in neither case will such a variation yield different species, as long as the populations, though geographically spread, can interbreed one with another.[citation needed]

---

Thus clinal morphological variation is similar to subspecies population variation, except that the populations overlap. In a different ecology they would (and do - hence the overlap) still develop the same. Well, Kaichos Man, you certainly have not provided any information that would show otherwise. You've raised a point you think is a telling blow to the work of Parker and Arnold, but nobody can find evidence that shows more than minor variations within species in your references (when we can find them) or outright lies (like your creationist site). Right, none of which affects the work of Parker and Arnold because it is all about the minor variations within species, with at most a mix up of closely related species (each directly descended from the same parent species). Look again at what defines the "major problem":

quote:

---

A major difficulty in foraminiferal taxonomy is that clinal morphological changes due to coadaptation to similar environmental gradients can produce morphological sequences that mimic evolutionary change. Furthermore, migration of similar forms from neighbouring areas can mask evolutionary or ecophenotypic signals in the sediments.

---

In otherwords, the difficulty is in distinguishing species differentiation from subpopulation variation in clines from ecophenotype variation in individuals.It seems that the "major difficulty" is sorting out subspecies versus species, a rather common problem in taxonomy (see Asian Greenish Warblers as an example of this problem).This still does not affect the overall lineages of descent from parent populations and the changes in species seen over millions of years as sorted out by Parker and Arnold, as the only effect is whether the ends have one or several twigs at the tips.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : more

---

And where's the citation for the first quote in Message 64? Maybe a few minutes for that one, and a few minutes for the next, and a few more minutes for the next, and some take longer than a few minutes.But for the particular Google you suggest, when you cut-n-paste "M. Schweizer, J. Pawlowski, I.A.P. Duijnsteea, T.J. Kouwenhovena and G.J. van der Zwaana, 2005" into Google Scholar it finds no pages. So now you have to edit it. First you try adding spaces after the periods (still nothing), then if that doesn't work you remove the initials and punctuation and just leave the last names (still nothing), so then you remove the year (still nothing). Google suggests an alternative spelling for two of the names, but this returns more than a page of results. Which ones to look at first? So you have to carefully read the titles and make best guesses.It's easy to spend ten minutes looking up a citation like that.You're obviously cutting-n-pasting from webpages. Presumably you have two browser windows or tabs open, one for your message in EvC Forum, the other for the webpage you're cutting-n-pasting from. Go to the address box of the page with the quote, click (it will select the entire URL), hit Ctrl-C, position the cursor at the appropriate place in your message box and click, hit Ctrl-V. Takes 10 seconds at most.Please. As a courtesy to everyone else, if you cut-n-paste something, provide a link to the webpage it came from.Edited by Admin, : Minor clarification.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The problem here is that many of you are attempting to spin the definition of a scientific theory. In order for something to be called a theory...it must be observable, testable, and predictable....i.e. Gravity is a theory because its effects meet this criteria.Testable - Drop something
Observable - That something falls
Predictable - What goes up, must come down.In practice, Evolution is neither fact, nor theory because it is "Assumed" to be correct prior to any research being conducted.....ie.."Evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact..."Now lets go find some evidence to prove it".Contrary to the assertions of main stream evolutionists (who also just happen to be atheists by the way), evolution is not testable, nor can it make any predictions. Sure one can assert that evolution is observable through fossil records; but if the records were as clear and unambiguous as many claim then there wouldnt be any disagreement among scientists.

Welcome to EvC, Foxdog! You may have a lot of fun here, if you survive the evisceration your first post is about to suffer.

Wow!! 3 PRATTS in the same sentence.1 Evolution is testable ever hear of genomes, fossils, DNA etc.
2 all evolutionists aren't Atheists many are theists, deists & agnostics.
3 The disagreements aren't over evolution but as to the processes which is healthy for evolution since it keeps scientists searching for evidence.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi Foxdog and welcome to the fray. A few quick points on distinguishing the three aspects of evolution:

1. The process: evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. This process leads to different evolution in different ecosystems, and when separation occurs this can result in speciation where the daughter populations become reproductively isolated from each other. Both the process of evolution and speciation have been observed, and are indeed facts.
2. The theory: the theory of evolution (ToE), briefly stated, is that the processes of evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from life in the world around us, from history, prehistory, archaeology, and paleontology, from the fossil record and the genetic record. This can be tested against the evidence of life, both in the genetic record and in the fossil record, and each and every new find is a test of the theory.
3. The science: the science of evolutionary biology studies the evidence, tests the ToE and other theories of the various mechanisms that cause change (mutation, selection, neutral drift, etc).

Why do creationists keep making this easily falsified assertion? I'm no atheist, and there are more theist evolutionists than atheists. And yet there is very little disagreement on the validity of evolution - how can that be ... unless the disagreements are about minor points rather than the major structure?If you want to discuss these issues further, please start a new thread. None of your points relate to the topic, and are likely to cause topic drift as people nail you for your lack of knowledge about evolution, gratuitous assertions regarding atheists and disregard for the evidence.Please see Message 1 for what the topic of this thread involves.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

LOL...Thanks for the welcome, and the heads up.

Please note that I said many "Main Stream" evolutionists, such as the ones we typically see promoted by the media...i.e. Richard Dawkins.

Hi again Foxdog,Any comments on the topic? You know, the issue raised in Message 1

quote:

---

We often see complaints or comments about the absence of fossil evidence for transitions in evolution. This usually comes in two parts:

​

(1) There are no transitional fossils
(2) There should be billions of transitional fossils

​

This thread is intended to discuss and answer this issue.

---

Also see
Message 2
Message 3
Message 4for more details.This forum generally likes people to stick to the topics in each thread, and if you can't find one about a topic you want to discuss, you can start a new topic at Proposed New TopicsThanks for your consideration.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : dbcode

---

Hi Foxdog!You must have worked hard to cram so many fallacies into a single post. I see you have already drawn three responses, but fallacy bashing is so much fun that I just can't resist responding myself. The book introducing the theory of evolution to the world, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, presented evidence about variation under domestication, variation in nature, competition between species, geology, paleontology, morphology, embryology and more. You should try reading it sometime.And of course, scientists have added massively to the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, including in the area of population genetics that drove the modern synthesis between Darwin's conception of evolution and genetics. The majority of evolutionary biologists are theists. Only a tiny proportion of the world's population are atheists. Even according to the Evidence For God website, which undoubtedly overstates the case, only 41% of biologists are atheists (see Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?). Ken Miller, probably the best known living evolutionist, is a devout Catholic. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical.Scientifically, except for a tiny group of evangelical scientists, acceptance of evolution is based upon the evidence, not upon religious belief or lack thereof. That is why scientists of all religions and no religion accept the theory of evolution, and why it is primarily only literalist-minded Christian evangelicals who reject it. But there is no meaningful disagreement among scientists about evolution as the unifying principle within biology. There's a public controversy brought about by evangelical attempts to teach their religion as science, but there's no scientific controversy. Creationists would have to actually publish their work in scientific journals and attend scientific conferences for your claim to be true, but by and large they don't do that.Nice oh-fer! Can you keep it up?--Percy

In that case I think you meant "prominent" or "highly visible". In my previous post I gave you two examples of prominent evolutionists who are religious.Many on both sides of the creation/evolution debate, including myself, find Dawkins an acerbic, divisive and alienating influence who we could best do without. The most helpful thing he could do, in my opinion, is to shut up.But even if all evolutionists *were* actually atheists, judging evolution on that basis is simply committing yet another fallacy, guilt by association. And probably an additional fallacy as well, the conspiracy fallacy, i.e., that the theory of evolution is not science but just an atheist conspiracy to bring about the end of Christianity.--Percy

And Kenneth Miller?

LOL...Ok folks...Points well taken. Just testing the waters. Sorry for the digression...

Oh yes. Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. Which means that, if you are identifying species by morphology alone (a la Parker, Arnold and their microphotography) you've got Buckley's chance of establishing a concrete, inarguable, specific evolutionary progression. At any given moment you may be looking at a range of morphologies that may all be the same species. They may not be, of course. The point is you can never know. No it isn't. It is: "Morphological sequences" being precisely what was presented by Parker and Arnold. They can mimic evolutionary change, RAZD. Not a good idea, therefore, to put them forward as "unbroken evolutionary sequences".Let's take a look at the way the University of South Florida views the problem:

quote:

---

One striving for an accurate suprageneric classification must supplement it with numerous updates, revisions, additions, and emendations, including Loeblich and Tappan's 1992 Present status of foraminiferal classification, and Sen Gupta's 1999 Systematics of Modern Foraminifera. Modern genetic techniques and consequent taxonomic conceptions mean these groupings will shift all the more often. Accurate species-level classification requires a vast and growing, not to mention often conflicting, library of references.

​

The proposed solution to this taxonomic quagmire is an online database of foraminiferal taxonomy.

​

McCloskey 2005

---

reference: http://gsa.confex.com/...5AM/finalprogram/abstract_97460.htm"Taxonomic quagmire", RAZD. That term does not allow for minor technical difficulties. McCloskey is obviously referring to the many instances where molecular research has demanded a revision of the classification of extant species of foraminifera. I can post references if you like, though I am sure you have encountered them in your research, as I have.This is current research into living species. A quagmire!We don't know what we're looking at with live foraminifera, RAZD. How on earth can we interpret anything from fossilized remains?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Welcome, Foxdog. I won't hear a word said against Dickie Dawkins, Foxdog. This man has provided Creationists with more ammunition than the rest of the evolutionary fraternity combined.Oh, and a word to the wise. If you have come to this forum hoping to win an argument, forget it. I have never seen anyone, Creationist or evolutionist, concede defeat. Not once. When the dust settles on any given subject, both sides believe they have won. Both sides are gobsmacked that the other side can't see how badly they have lost.I tell you this because to expect victory -far less than to claim it- is to invite disillusionment.As RAZD would say, enjoy!Edited by Kaichos Man, : crap grammar

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin