The Origin of Novelty

Maybe you should have read everything I said, instead of quoting the part that looked like I am shifting the goalposts. You would make a good sensationalist journalist, and that is not a compliment.I said: I have been pretty consistent that a transitional sequence proves nothing, yet if many are found, it can add strength to the theory of evolution. And I clearly acknowledged this particular sequence as "succesful" even if I believe it proves nothing to artificially place fossils in an order of features.

You would sound less biased if you acknowledged that some OTHER examples in that link do actually prove my point.

No there are other bat fossils, dated older, 55 million years ago, a little older than the Onychonycteris. (not that I accept radiometric dating, but it can indicate relative ages).
These earlier bat fossils are very similar to today, showing no significant evolutionary changes, which gives some strength to the possibility that the Onychonycteris is merely a unique bat that became extinct (its not THAT unique actually, 5 claws instead of two, and relatively short wings not too different from some modern bats).Australonycteris Australonycteris - Wikipedia But even today we have the full range of environments. aquatic, semi-aquatic, land. We therefore have the full range of animals for those environments. Its easy to arrange animals in a sequence and there will always be a full range to choose from. So arrangements are meaningless as evidence, because every age has had marine/semi-marine/land fauna.There are other more logical explanations for the fossil record. If we observe the sudden appearance of new forms, fully intact and without clear transitional forms, this points to rare niche environments suddenly dominating due to changes to the environment. This process is observed, unlike evolution of new novel additional coding genes which remains un-observed. Paleontologists should logically be looking for ancient niche environments , but instead they look for transitional forms because of their evolutionist bias. The fossil record looks like rare animals in niche environments suddenly dominated earth. This is why new species appear suddenly and completely in the fossil record without transitional forms. This is consistent with what happens in any changed environment, the unsuitable forms die off, the suitable forms in that area suddenly dominate, and other suitable organisms will slowly infiltrate the new environment. We haven't observed this on a worldwide basis in modern times, but the same principles would apply to a worldwide change. A world change to the environment would necessitate new dominant species. If scientists did not have evolutionary bias , they would be looking for niche environments in ancient layers that show that these niche creatures did actually exist, long before they dominated.These niche environments do exist, the anomalies are endless, none accepted by science, and so will only be found on sites not acceptable for a scientific forum:
cococay
http://s8int.com/phile/page56.html
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/ironpot.htm
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is TrueBut I'm making you think, there is a whole more logical explanation for the fossil record, entirely consistent with science's own studies of how the world has changed: Its approximately like this:
1) Marine anoxic (trilobites)
2) Marine oxic (fish), small landmass
3) Increasing landmass, swamps (amphibians)
4) Sudden global warming with some marine anoxia (reptiles)
5) Sudden global cooling (mammals)Evolution? Or merely proven changing environments when ALREADY existing fauna and flora from isolated environments dominate the planet? Where does the evidence really point? The lack of transitionary fossils, and the increasing number of anomalies points more and more to the proven process of PROLIFERATION of already existing species, rather than the unproven process of the introduction of additional genes containing genetic novelty.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Not at all, I think Granny Magda has a better take on my position. She understands that evolutionists can "build a case" through increasing transitional sequences. No single sequence can prove anything, the more sequences that are found, the more evidence for evolution. Most sequences are frankly not convincing enough. You need small changes to a specific species, and this must be in an expected evolutionary path. The horse example always fails, because there were ancient species with hoofs existing at the same time as the 3 toed horse, so when most sequences have definite failures, the case for evolution does not build strength.You can however see short-term nested hierarchies, in ancient fossils, and today. This can show the adaptive flexibility of the genome to produce a range of phenotypes, and also some mutations that produce large phenotye changes (dwarfism). So I am in agreement with the rapid evolution of phenotypes in short-term phenotype changes that is reflected in the fossil record. This may support short term evolution, but this is part of the baramin concept too.

I've been told to accept what scientists say without questioning it, yet as soon as a scientist contradicts your position, you willing to reject the evidence? lol typical of a biased viewpoint. The EARLIEST bat, had echolocation already, this bat had "part of a periotic", ie its ear bone was identifiable.http://xerxes.calstate.edu/pomona/articles/record?id=FETC...Murgon Bat - The Australian Museum
Ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation. The teeth of Australonycteris are unusually worn, perhaps through regular contact with hard food like beetle carapaces.So the very first bat suddenly appears already having flight and already having echolocation. No significant evolutionary change since that first one. Thanks for describing it so eloquently. That is basically what has been done. It is actually that easy, in every age there are common aquatic, common semi aquatic, and common terrestrial animals. So there is always abundant material to work with, even more so before the major extinctions. I agree that scientists have tried to be as honest as possible with their taxonomic relationships, but it is all basically guesswork based on the assumption of evolution. The facts are that there were a lot of unique animals, mainly in groupings, and most of them have gone extinct. What stuff? Lucy? Bats? Whales? Exactly! The fossil record says they just appeared, this is what the evidence is showing, sudden appearance of fully "evolved" forms without the "common ancestor" being evident. Evolutionists then project backwards mathematically to guess when the original "common ancestor" existed, its because they hardly ever find any original common ancestors. The more common observation of niche environments becoming proliferate should be entertained too, rather than assuming evolution, when more common processes are observed. They don't. The only one given in this thread is the whale line-up. But that's as logical as your seal/manatee/goat sample. Its pure guesswork. During every age there is the full aquatic/land range , and so its no problem finding the right so-called transition in every layer. There's always a seal or a pelagiceti somewhere on earth at any given time. So there's bound to be a "transition" at just the right time in history, because every time in history has an aquatic animal that can walk. The human line-up ..... lol... Lucy the ape is a human? And I'm not allowed to question taxonomic experts according to Granny Magda. What about the first mammal? It has mole ears and mole limbs, its a mole. Scientists say its the "transition" from a reptile with ground hearing and splayed limbs. They say mouse-like or shrew-like, what about mole-like. They should just take a look at a mole. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I did say approximate hope the rest of your day is better.

Hi, as you likely realized I haven't the time to quickly deal with your posts in this thread, there is no ways I will have such time in another thread as well. I stick to one thread at a time, and i will get to your posts, don't worry I'm keen to get into the dating thread too, and also start my own one on radiometric dating. None of this can happen soon.

getting to your post on genetics

Thanks for the listA) Irrelevant - its a modern chimpB, C, D, E , F are simply apes. Just because a gorilla has a large cranial capacity, or a gibbon has an upright stance, or an orangutang has smaller eyebrow ridges, does NOT make them human. In the days before the great extinctions, there were a lot more species, just because one or two of them had some of these modern ape features, does not make them any more human than modern apes are human.G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N are humans. Neanderthal bloodlines are found among modern humans, just because through diet, lifestyle, or heredity, some humans have more prominent eyebrow ridges, does not make them less human. Take the Australian aboriginal race, these are descendants from Asian race groups, and SUBSEQUENTLY developed the prominent eyebrow ridge and receding forehead. And yet as a generalization, these people are particularly human - emotionally/spiritually sensitive and aware.If even today with our limited number of existing species, a range of ape and human skulls can be placed in a row, its really easy to arrange ancient fossils in a row too, because at every stage in history you have a huge range to choose from, especially before the extinctions. Arranging skulls proves nothing, but well done evolutionists, another arrangement for us to ponder over

Sorry, I do sometimes delay and then forget about some of the more technical posts, but I'm not deliberately avoiding any posts in this thread, except those that post repetitive nonsense.I do acknowledge that some mutations have benefit. these are generally of the DISABLING type. ie if something bad is attacking the organism and killing it, to disable that area and lose some function is better than to have the function and be susceptible to attack. A similar example is the Duffy gene, this gene can have beneficial disabling in independent populations that causes protection from malaria. So I do agree with some processes of evolution, I prefer to apply the term "devolution" though, reduced functionality and reduced coding genes over time.However these beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and yet adaptation via changes to allele frequencies is extremely common. Thus when beneficial changes are observed in an organism (a fly adapting to temperature, a mouse adapting to a new environment) the more common mechanism is changes to allele frequencies, evolutionists are too quick to jump to the assumption of beneficial mutation, maybe because of the lack of evidence for such evolutionary processes, and a subsequent tendency to clutch at straws.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I would like to look into this, but you just mention "upthread". I haven't got the time to find it, if you can understand I'm discussing with many people at once, and so I'm often surprised when I'm expected to do the research when logically I'm the one with the least time.

The AUSTRALOPITHECUS is an ape. And unfortunately you have had propaganda enriched education! In your early days of education you get shown a sequence of pictures from ape to crouched hairy man, and the mental imprint is so strong that evolutionists have built a massive "evidence based" mountain of information with no foundation except a few fossils arranged in artificial sequences. It is funny , even though its really sad for science. Fair enough question. I do believe evolution of complexity is theoretically possible in some minor forms, but never yet demonstrated. I believe the main limiting factor to increased complexity over time is the inability of nature through chance to make any meaningful novel changes (resulting in unique features). There have been very limited evolutionist claims in this respect, a few studies that claim a mutated gene remained active and yet increased fitness. Another limiting factor is the general observed tendency of duplicated coding genes to cause damage. However I am in discussion with bluegenes about other possibilities in this regard, and am open to reviewing my stance on this. But even if the required evolutionary mechanism of an increase in the number of novel coding genes is one day proven, this does not prove that evolution IS the explanation for modern organisms, just because the process is possible. A mole has splayed legs. I've dealt with his hominid range of skulls now that I had the time. No I would expect something more logical, like a body covering that had some aspects of scales and some aspects of fur. This is what the gradual change of evolutionary theory would predict. Its the very understanding of this slow process of evolution that is NOT reflected in the fossil record, that brings doubt to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the existence of modern organisms. Don't get too detailed or patronising, your New York explanation is really not necessary. Believe me the concept of gradual changes from bacteria to humans over 600 million years is pretty easy to understand. Do you think your blind acceptance of pictures of hominid sequences from your youth somehow makes you have advanced intelligence to better understand this simplistic concept? I think blind acceptance is the less intelligent process. To what extent have you actually taken the "baramin" concept as an intellectually challenging idea to throw yourself into understanding, even as an abstract concept just for intellectual amusement?To be more direct, where are these gradual changes you are claiming from the scales of a reptile, to the mole-like megazostrodon, a fully fledged mammal? Where are these so-called gradual changes? Believe me , creationists do understand evolutionists wild claims, we just battle to see it in the fossil record.

More claims by evolutionists. Please just give me a link, or article to back up your claims that those particular ape fossils are human? Don't assume these scientists know everything, I would like you to actually QUOTE them to back up your claims. They are placed in chronological order. I give you that. BUT they were not the ONLY hominid fossils of that time. Do you get my point? If EVERY age has a large range of hominid fossils, then this gives evolutionists the freedom to pick and choose among the hominid fossils available for that age, to find one that best suits their homology sequence. This makes the process arbitrary. YOU may not see this point, but there are clever spectators of this thread that will be quietly giggling at your lack of comprehension combined with your intellectual patronising. To explain it SLOWLY for you, there were monkey fossils during each age too. So they just picked the convenient ape fossils that had at least one feature that matched humans, without acknowledging that EVERY age has had apes with at least one feature matching humans, right from the very first ape.For example one of the very first monkeys, the apidium, had a human-like flat face. If found later, this would be "proof" of evolution, because of the developing flat features. But because the apidium is found first, the emphasis is on other human-like features of the other later apes (brow ridge). The core logic in support of evolution is frankly, missing! I didn't say every age had every species, but every age had a large range to choose from. not unfounded at allEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Oh they were bipedal like gibbons? Gibbons are on the way to becoming more human like, as proven by their bipedal pelvis? This proves that they are a future missing link of some future intelligent race? hmmm I'm not sure about your logic that a bipedal posture and pelvis proves anything. Maybe an increased brain size proportional to body size would have more significance towards the rise of an intelligent species. Oh really? I would think the first signs of a rise towards an intelligent race would be brain capacity, not upright posture. Gibbons have an upright posture, they are not the brightest of anthropoid apes and I doubt are heading off to becoming more intelligent than the chimp, just because they stand straight. What links etc can you show me to prove your statement that the A afarensis has the correct mixture of characteristics as expected under ToE?Look at the proconsul, arguably the first ape. It had LESS prominent brow ridges than future apes. ie it showed human features prematurely, followed by other apes with less human features (prominent brow ridges). Logically these are just numerous unique species, only the assumption of evolution would put them in an artificial sequence, when at every age there were numerous types of apes, some which had human-like features. Thanks for the link, even the article itself admitted that there is not enough literature that does define Lucy as an intermediate. But I feel their attempt to do so also fails. Let me quote a logical fallacy of that article , the entire article is based on a silly argument "The hypothesis that Lucy is just an ape predicts that the comparison will reveal no humanlike features in Lucy that are unnecessary for upright bipedal locomotion"He's basically saying that any ape with more than one human feature is an intermediate, and not fully an ape. But yet he then defines ape features, based on the chimpanzee. Why pick on the chimp? Why not the gorilla, or the orangutang? I personally see a human as having a high brain to body size ratio as adjusted by the encephalization quotient (EQ). If say an ape could be shown to have the EQ of a dolphin, then sure. that would be a good candidate for an intermediate, but the other features are all shared even among non-human relatively lacking intelligence apes, and no-one feature is only seen in humans, why then call these features "human" if modern apes already have them? And it is wrong to class an ape as "human-like" just because it has two features that are already common among modern great apes, humans, and gibbons. Regarding whether I am wrong about the diversity of ape species during past ages, let's look at the Miocene: Wikipedia had the following to say:
Miocene - Wikipedia
Approximately 100 species of apes lived during this time. They ranged over much of the Old World and varied widely in size, diet, and anatomy. Due to scanty fossil evidence it is unclear which ape or apes contributed to the modern hominid clade, but molecular evidence indicates this ape lived from between 15 to 12 million years ago.One hundred species? That is a lot.Then during the Pleistocene we have evidence of current great apes, as well as a number of other ape-like species: the Paranthropus and Australopithecus , Gigantopithecus, the mystery ape : The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia | Nature
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/259 " In a previous study of material from the cave of Tham Khuyen (Schwartz et al., 1994) we identified, but did not name, a new species of Pongo as well as a new genus and species of thick-enameled, nonhominid hominoid. These new taxa are named and characterized in this contribution, as are four new subspecies of Pongo pygmaeus."So generally you evolutionists have a nice range of apes to choose from. Yes cherry picking is the right phrase, you can pick which ones best suit your imagined evolutionary tree from every age. The problem with evolution is that there is so much intellectual pride at stake (and careers at stake) that when any evidence is found that contradicts the view, it is ridiculed and never analysed properly. I'm sure you will take the same approach to the following links as other scientists do, rather than looking for actual truth:NONE of the following websites is reputable, but reading between the lines you can see the wealth of unfaced truth that scientists of today should be answerable for. The reason these websites are popping up all the time, and have gained so much popularity is because people can see that the scientific community is NOT taking alternative views seriously enough, and with scientific respect:
Just a moment...
http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=8XLKTFDM&tocp=97
Evolution by Catastrophe: Does it indicate Intelligent Design? - Graham Hancock Official Website
Page not found – Hall of the GodsI am 100% sure these links will have no effect on you, its the neutral spectators that they will affect profoundly, and this effect will be exacerbated by the attitudes of evolutionists on this thread which merely reflect or copy the blindness of the scientific community. I'm willing to explore every idea with openness to truth, I wonder why scientists are not willing, this seems extremely unscientific to me.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm not too interested in credentials or labels, I'm interested in facts. If you can back up your comments with facts, I'm cool with that.