Quiz and Evolutionary Biology

Yes, evolution suggest creatures like archaeopteryx - a "mosaic" resulting from different traits evolving at different times and rates, rather than a smooth transition.Evolutionary theory predicts that each creature will be complete in itself because there is no overriding goal. Each form must be functional on its own terms. It is not like building a house because the intermediate stages of building a house are not so constrained - they ARE steps to an ultimate goal and the only thing of importance is their contribution to that goal.

Beware of Creationist misquotes and misrepresentations, Quiz.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

A creature could still function with only partial limbsQuiz

Thank you, I will consider this informationQuiz

Archaeopteryx has complete arms which function as wings. Its ancestors would also have had complete arms. So where in that sequence would there be a "partial" limb ?

Darwin, as you said, was concerned that the fossil record didn't adequately chronicle evolutionary transitions. His view of the evolutionary movie in the rocks was that every frame represented a gradual change from the previous frame. Our view today of the movie is that not much happens most of the time (thousands of frames of stasis), and the transitions are so sudden (a few quick frames, perhaps) that we miss them. None of us here are 'Darwinian literalists' or anything. Pulling out a quote from Darwin often illustrates just how much progress has been made in the field of study that bears his name.Not every species leaves fossils, and it seems fossilization itself is a fortuitous event. The passenger pigeon once numbered in the billions. It has been extinct since 1914 and there are no known fossils of the species. I don't consider it unrealistic to assume that many other species were left on the evolutionary cutting room floor.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-04-2003]

Thats the idea, I dont believe there was. But I believe there should be.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-04-2003]

Quiz, you are getting an awful lot of answers to your posts. But it appears to me that there are some pretty basic things that need to be sorted out before any details of the fossil record and genetics is discussed.1) The earth is old! If you have any doubts on this matter you should post to some of the dates and dating or other relavant threads.2) The flood as a mechanism for sorting fossils has been discussed a bit. It is very clear that this is simply not a viable idea. You suggests "according to their type/cycle". Since that is NOT the way fossils are sorted it is clearly wrong. If you have some definition of "type/cycle" that can sort fossils the way they are found perhaps you can supply that. However, they are not sorted by size, swimming ability, running ability, bouancy or anything else that seems relavant. Am I missing something?Once you have these two things straightened out then further discussions of the fossil record become meaningful. Without straightening these misconceptions out there is no possibility of meaningful discussion.

NosyNed's message seems to be a good place to take a break - But there's probably about 20 people about to post messages, so I'll leave it open for (maybe) about another hour.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

So what are you saying ? That the ancestor of birds would have to lose arms and then grow wings ? That's silly. A bird's wing is a modified arm. No loss of limbs, no gain of limbs so no partial limbs.

See subject.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Topic re-opened.AM

Quiz, let's address a number of things here.1) Picture a random exotic species in the world - say, the marine iguanas from the galapagos. Sea levels rise and fall. Islands grow and shrink. Continents move, land masses fold and undergo subduction. If a whole branch of species evolved from these iguanas, what are the odds that, 300 million years in the future, that archaeologists would stumble into where these iguanas originally lived? Very few fossils fossilize; even if *all* of them did, the odds of the single location where a species or whole line of species originally evolved is almost nil. Do you understand this? Now, a future archaeologist would be pretty likely to stumble into *some* kind of iguana fossil from this time period - but finding the precise one is just not going to happen in the vast majority of cases.2) Species evolve toward whatever their selection criteria merit. If what is determing how fit they are to survive and breed stays the same - as it does in most parts of the world during most periods of time - the species will remain rather stagnant. Change will only occur when the "rules of the game" change, so to speak - when a new species finds itself introduced to a different area and establishes a new niche, when climate changes, when geography changes, etc. However, once the new environment is adapted to, change will again slow. Thus, you are going to expect that species transitions will occur in a relatively short period of time compared to how long the starting and ending point lasts.3) New features to organisms develop through cooption. For example, a bat's wing isn't structured as one would make an airplane wing - it's structured like an arm, complete with a hand and fingers. You can see many animals that live in niches which are "partway" to a bat level, such as the sugar glider. The more intense the selective pressure is to be able to glide (or even fly) versus having a more robust skeleton and being able to handle varied climate, the more you're going to be selected for a flying vs. jumping or gliding creature. Here, we also go back to issue #1: preservation. Thin, weak skeletoned creatures preserve poorly. Consequently, there are far fewer preserved bat samples than there are, say, horse samples.Other examples you can see of cooption range from the pelvis of the whale (which even leg sockets that occasionally have small, internal legs) to the Aye Aye's finger.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-05-2003]

If all you ever read about nature was Genesis and the rest of the Torah, what would you expect the fossil record to look like? I would suspect that not even the most liberal reading of the Torah would allow the type of sorting that is present. Why don't we find human bones in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why do we see sorting between gymnosperms (conifers and ferns) and angiosperms (flowering trees, flowers, and grasses). Why is it that the deeper we dig the less familiar the animals are? Add to this the ability to date ingeous rocks and therefore the ability to age strata from different continents and the sorting becomes even more striking.I find it somewhat dishonest for you to presuppose the Genesis story to be true without evidence and then cite lack of evidence when critiquing the Theory of Evolution. If the ToE were found to be false tomorrow, what evidence is there that supports Creation as you see it besides the Bible? The only way you seem to be supporting Creation is calling it true to begin with and shoehorning evidence to fit your views. Scientifically, evidence comes first, then theory, and then more evidence to back it up. You are starting with theory and making everything else fit it, even when it seems contradictory.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-05-2003]

Some people have six fingers instead of five.It's a genetic condition -- there are not people with
five and a half fingers.I'm not sure why you think there should be
half-formed structures.

quote:

---

If you could split the building of a house into 5 billion steps you would need each step to evolve a entire house.

---

But you wouldn't need to see all 5 billion to be reasonably sure of
how the house was constructed. IF you did the site formeman
would not be able to do his job, and the clerk of the works (UK
thing) would be even less able to operate effectively.If I go on Monday of week one I'll see people milling about
digging machines, and not a lot else.Go back in a week or two and I may see some foundations,
another two weeks and there will be walls going up
or steel-work on larger buildings. And so on.I don't need to see every step along the way, and unlike building
house organisms don't pop-out with half-formed structures --
viable organisms are all fully formed, just not the same as their parent(s).Small genetic changes can cause vast obvious alteration or small
sublte and hard to detect modifications. Build these up
over time and the POPULATION changes. With the fossil
record we get a broad brush view of how this has happened
over millions of years -- we stop in every few thousand
years and take a very small sample of what was about.By itself it is consistent with evolutionary theory, when taken
with the other support it builds a strong case.As I said before, the fossil record is not consistent with
the LITERAL creation account in the bible any more than it
is consistent with the idea that Zeus popped out of
Chronos' head and decided to make mankind.Evolution does NOT preclude the possibility of god (ANY god),
it doesn't (of itself) even comment on any biblical content.The evidence that supports evolution tends to undermine
the literal creation account though.