Evolution for Dummies and Christians

What would you want to see as proof? A transitional species? An animal which has a mixture of features unique to one type of animal as well as features found in other types?For example, archaeoptrix, which has feathers - a feature completely unique to birds (and definitively avian - all birds have feathers, only birds have feathers), while still having the teeth, tail, limbs, etc of dino-lizards?How is Archie not an example of macro-evolution at work? How is it not a transitional species?

So, for example, if there were fossil records of dino-lizards which had downy feathers (primative) rather than flight feathers (advanced), or a dino-lizard with flight feathers and a beak instead of feathers and teeth, you'd consider that string to be a lineage, thus indicating macro-evolution?

We are talking about Archaeopteryx. It's a pretty famous fossil, I'm sure you've seen an image of it before, but here's a link in case you haven't.http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...inos/Archaeopteryx.shtmlIt's a particularly pretty fossil, and there are several representatives.Archie falls smack dab between lizard-like dinos and birds. It has fully developed feathers, but still has teeth, a flat sternum, clawed wings, etc.Prior to Archie there were (among many others)
Sinosauropteryx prima - a lizard-like dino that had very primative (downy like) feathers
Caudipteryx zoui - which had long, symetrical feathers (more advanced than downy feathers, but since they are not asymetric, they would have been useless for flight).After Archie there's
IBEROMESORNIS - a small, flying "bird" which had teeth inside it's beak, and it's hip was primative (more dino-like) than modern birds.And many others, including modern birds.Looking at features like feathers, teeth, bone structure, etc. There is a clear line from lizard-like dinos to dinos with primative feathers, to dinos with advanced feathers, to dinos with flight feathers, to archie, to flying dinos/birds with teeth and beaks, to mostly modern birds with a few primative features, to modern birds.We're not talking about "head gets bigger" type features here. Feathers are unique to this line of ancestory, the development of feathers from primative hairlike quills to completely modern flight feathers is well documented.If this is not a good lineage proving macro-evolution, can you please explain what more it would take to convince someone?

From what I've read above it seems that -1) There is a type of plant - mimululs guttatus
2) A subset of the plant developed tolerances to copper
3) That subset can breed among itself, but can not breed with the original group from which it spawned.How is this a reduction in genetic diversity? The initial set wasn't copper resistant. So the addition of a copper resistant strain necessarily means that there is more genetic diversity.Additionally, I don't understand where you are concluding sterility? There is a breeding population of copper resistant plants. They are reproducing. How is that sterile?

David,Many of us are on these forums quite often, checking many threads. If you post, we'll find you. No need to repeat yourself in multiple threads.

You need to understand that the methodology of dating fossils has changed as new technologies become available. If fact, the article you site specifically says: When "Java Man" was originally described in 1891, radio carbon dating etc was not available.Your larger point is that the dates are changing. Yes. But, I can not think of any examples of a fossil where it was originally .5 million, then 1.5 million, then .25 million etc. The dates are becoming more accurate over time, there isn't any flip-flop. I can understand your thinking here, but you are wrong. Other fossil remains have been given a great deal of study. There are scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to the evolution of snails for example.Human fossils are problematic as a foundation because we haven't been around as long as say crocodiles or horse shoe crabs.Look instead to fossils of animals which have been around and in great numbers for longer periouds of time. You'll find a lot less deviation in these "lesser" animals.

Here's the flaw in your thinking Thule Not all the plants are copper resistant. There are still members of the original group which are not copper resistant and don't need to be. They are still the same original species of plant that they were to begin with. However, the group that is now copper resistant can not interbreed with the group which is not copper resistant, therefore diverse and seperate species. It's not a reduction because the original type of plant still exists. So you agree that it is not the same species of plant, but it's not sterile the way a mule is sterile. Two mules can not breed to make a 3rd mule. Two of the copper resistant plants can breed to make a 3rd copper resistant plant.

Yes. Otherwise everything on Earth is a member of the same species. They aren't a subset, because the parent population doesn't include copper tolerant plants which can't reproduce with the parent population. The process that created this group removed them from the set which is the parents.You could argue that there was a point when the plants were slightly copper resistant and still able to reproduce with parent species. That group would likely be a subset of both groups.

Yeah, I originally put that in my post, then took it back out because all three are transitional species, as is everything else, and yada yada yada we spin off topic

Not everyONE, everyTHING. Meaning all dogs, cows, kelp, starfish, etc. All the same species, by his definition

There are a number of new people to the site all of the sudden and I have gotten some of you a bit confused.Please tell me that you aren't a Young Earth CreationistOne of the BIG debates with the YEC is about "how much faster" the rate of nuclear decay was in the time before and during the great flood.

hehe ya.Most of us ToErs don't have a problem with Old Earth Creationists (at least in comparison) but those Young Earthers...The idea that you'd have a degree in nuclear physics and buy into variable decay had me worried.

Yeah, you're right. I was combining Theistics and OEC. I guess we don't really hear much from the original OECs anymore, that's why there is some blur.But the two are distinctly different