Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

John Paul:
The only gradual changes we see arfe the snail evolving into a snail or a clam evolving into a clam.So what makes a snail a snail and a clam a claim?Fossilization requires a quick burialFossils can gradually be buried by incoming sediment.The only reason to believe a dinos forelimbs evolved into wings is faith.However, birds' wings are their forelimbs, so all that's necessary is to modify forelimbs. Creationists sometimes seem remarkably ignorant of comparative anatomy; consider their willingness to deny that the coccyx is a vestigial tail.

Or look in my Wright Brothers Anniversary Thread; notice the pterosaur, bird, and bat have their front limbs modified into wings. I looked for some nice bird skeletons, and I could find some chicken and pigeon skeletons -- and this diagram:

John Paul:
It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution.Like what would you consider acceptable evidence? Following the generations in a time machine?If bat's wings were just elongated arms/ fingers then it would be a given that the genes that govern the limbs/ fingers were what mutated.I actually agree with that. In fact, there is a paper that addresses exactly this question: Comparative studies on limb morphogenesis in mice and bats: a functional genetic approach towards a molecular understanding of diversity in organ formationIn effect, that paper's authors want to find out what makes a bat's front-limb digits grow much more than a mouse's.What happens if embryology falsifies that notion?It would be a big surprise -- and the authors of the above paper find no evidence of that.BTW, homolgy has been falsified for years.How so?Look up fossilization. If an organism isn't buried within 2 years tops it will not fossilize, it will deteriorate. Trace fossils left on the surface will erode.On land, maybe. But not underwater, where it can become buried by sediment. In fact, fossils are forming right now.Flying squirrels glide, they don't fly. A variation of a regular squirrel. No big deal.John Paul, are you claiming that you consider "flying" squirrels to be descended from nonflying/nongliding ones? I really want to know what's your position on that subject.

John Paul:
On fossilization- I should have been more clear. I was talking about land organisms.However, they can die in bodies of water. And plants' leaves can be blown by wind to water. Try taking Taphonomy 101. Jonathan Wells's homology article.Which is full of misunderstandings and perhaps even misrepresentations. Hox genes do NOT specify antennae or legs or wings; they control other genes that make these appendages.As to similar larvae -> different adults, so what? All that means is that post-larval development goes in different directions. Also, so what about indirect vs. direct development in close species? That only means that the indirect-developer larval phase was exited while inside the egg in the direct developers.Also, some 1971 book is far from the last word in the genetics of development; Gavin de Beer had been speculating that homologous features can be produced by non-homologous genes. But a lot has been learned in the 32 years since, and that speculation is totally unsupported.He makes a big issue out of variations in recruitment of cells for forming various structures, but I do not see why that is such a big issue.And he stumbles over variations in ossification of cartilage -- it happens faster in some species than in others, and it can be variable.