evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Not from what I read: Your questions made it quite obvious that you were referring to immediate speciation, since you were talking about offspring being reproductively distinct from their parents, with their only possible mates being their siblings.You know, it is okay if you don't know something. The point of these discussions is to learn, in my opinion. Try not to be so defensive - we're not your enemies. On a simple level, you won't see "observable changes" in the fossil record, because fossils are unchanging static snap-shots. So far it appears that you reject transitionals, so in a sense you are blinding yourself from seeing the "changes." What do you expect to see in the fossil record as "changes" that aren't represented there?An image representing the well-represented/examined horse lineage: Here is the complete website with the interactive form of the picture - you can click on the skulls to get images and more detailed info about the entire skeletal structure.Examine these and see if you can see "observable changes".Also, here's the extensive TalkOrigins site on transitionals,And the EvC thread "Show one complete lineage in evolution".All of these will answer your fossil questions better than I can. Abrupt how? and based on what evidence? You certainly will, since you don't seem to have the basics on evolutionary theory down yet.(You also haven't begun to give a response to the genetic "tree of life" and "broken" gene issues I raised above.)

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. What else would a static record of dynamic change look like besides the fossil record we have?

Yes.The fossil record.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them." *David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.I can find no evidence to contradict this statement, and if anyone looks carefully at the examples given to support evolution they will find the same thing.

Please describe what "an intermediate form between species" would look like. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.Also, giving my best guess as to what it might be, I don't see that the fossil record would be the place to look. The species level change can be very, very small indeed. In fact, with living animals it is possible to have living species that we can not tell apart without very careful examination. How much harder would it be with fossils alone?

Well, the statement contradicts itself, really. How could an intermediate form between a species not be a species itself?Evolution predicts that intermediate, transitional species will exist, and indeed, the fossil record is chock-a-block with them.

quote:

---

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them." *David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.

---

And on the very next page, Kitts writes "The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case."Kitts then procedes to explain why this does not falsify evolution, including a discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium.Kitts only says that there are lack of transitionals "between species". These transitional forms are going to be very few in number and be limited to a small range. The chances of these individuals fossilizing is very low, and the chances of us finding that fossil are even lower. The modes of speciation explain why we see very few of these transitional forms, and it also explains why we see a smooth transition of larger changes, such as the page on horse evolution which you seemed to have ignored.

We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." *David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.Since there were no examples in Darwin's time, as admitted by Darwin, that leaves less than nothing.

I guess you haven't looked very "carefully", since the evidence is a few posts above in my last reply to you.Look at the skulls of Equus and Merychippus. You'll find an intermediate form between them, Dinohippus. Lots of other "intermediate forms" on that diagram.There's some evidence for you since you seemed to have missed it the first time.

xevolutionist-Your new quote-mining-based style isn't going to get you very far here.

I have read several analyses of your example and most of them conclude that all of the supposed pre-horses existed at the same time as horses.

I guess I haven't checked my calendar lately, but I wasn't aware that it was 1979?

Which has exactly what to do with them being transitional horse fossils?

Wow - that desperate old misquote - you really need to try harder, those of us who been around the block a few times have seen that one lots of time.Maybe you should tell us Darwin recanted on his deathbed as an encore?stopping going to junk creationist sites and try actually reading the work that they mangle

So?When one species splits into two, one of them doesn't immediately become extinct. Your argument is analogous to claiming that my father can't be my father because he's alive at the same time I am.Again you are revealing your simple misconceptions about how evolution is thought to proceed.