Show one complete lineage in evolution

quote:

---

The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence. A few so called 'transitionals' are nothing - you need to have one complete lineage.

---

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10—20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Niet gevonden - Not found

---

Is direct observation physical enough for you?

quote:

---

What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage

---

Excuse me, lying? Show me what scientist has ever said that he has the fossils of each and every generation of a lineage.

quote:

---

There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!

---

And why would we expect there to be? Do you seriously think it's possible for each descendent of an animal to be fossilzed?

quote:

---

The so called 'transitional' forms don't prove evolution, perhaps they give evolutionists hope that they are on the right track but that is it!

---

When you have actually observed evolution happening, it's rather pointless hoping that you are on the right track, isn't it? Rather like accusing Cell Theory proponents to "hope that they are on the right track" after the microscope has been invented.

quote:

---

And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.

---

I agree, Creationism is not science, and critzing it doesn't do anything apart from exposing it as the pseudo-science that it is.

quote:

---

I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers.

---

I challenge anyone to provide me with a complete lineage of humans up until Socrates.

quote:

---

there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)

---

No, there shouldn't be. Only very few animals get fossilzed.

quote:

---

The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence

---

No, the reason why evolution is accepted is because it's "arguments are sound," there is physical evidence (in the form of fossils, biogeography, Genetics etc.) and it has been OBSERVED!

quote:

---

The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found

---

Longer than the Germ Theory of Disease, Cell Theory, and Heliocentrism.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Not a drastically different species!?! Going from being unicellular to being multicellular is not a drastic change!?!
Well, I guess you accept human evolution and all other evolution then? After all, apes and humans aren't drastically different. Yes, it does. It's variation that was selected upon by natural selection, which eventually produced not just a new species, but a new family. Well, perhaps because you did not clarify, and since "lineage" means the descendents of an organism, what else is it supposed to mean when you say "complete lineage"? Tells us what you mean when you say "complete lineage" please. No, they are not different types of "horse." While they are related, organisms like Hyracotherium and Parahippus are not "types" of the modern genus Equus, as anyone with even remote competence in taxonomy or equine evolution will tell you.But then again, for you they are probably the same, as you don't seem to see any difference between organism below the family level. If we gave you the skeleton of every generation of humans and chimpanzees up to the point where our ancestors separated, you would probably claim that it is not evolution, since we are both in the family Hominidae, and thus not drastically different species!

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Just to get back to the original question a bit and away from wing evolution, and to complement Coragyps' link, I found a nice little site showing pictures of different fossil horses:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Did you not see the links he posted? The ones that list, among others, the fossils of the Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals? You mean something like the links posted previously? A sequence of of horse fossils showing the transtition from the ancient Hyracotherium to the modern Equus?
I also find it fascinationg how you trivialize the change from walking on a 4 toed foot to walking on a single overgrown toenail! Yes, such as having observed it happening, as I have already shown in message 10

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

From the website:

quote:

---

First, notice that the charts both begin with Hyracotherium... There are no horses or any other animals shown before Hyracotherium. The reason no previous fossils are shown on the chart is because none has been found. In other words, there is an important gap in the horse fossil record right at the beginning of the chart.

---

1. We just spent the entire thread explaining to you why it's impossible to have all the fossils until the beginning of life! Fossilization is rare!2. How could we possibly statisfy this "critique"? If we were to show the author of that webpage the animal that predated Hyracotherium, he would only turn around and say "Aha! Now you don't know what animal came before THAT! You have filled in one gap, but now you have a new one!"

quote:

---

Hunt does not tell us what it is, scientifically, that connects Hyracotherium and Mesohippus.

---

1. One transitional would be Orohippus, which "was slightly larger than Hyracotherium, but shared its generally primitive postcranial skeletal structure. For example, as in humans, the lower limb bones of the forelimb (the radius and ulna) of Hyracotherium and Orohippus are distinct and unfused. This is the primitive condition for mammals, and permits rotational movement at the elbow and wrist joints. This condition is retained by animals such as small forest dwellers who must maneuver over uneven terrain. In its postcranial skeleton, Orohippus differs from Hyracotherium by having more enlarged middle digits on its fore and hind feet, and by displaying a complete loss of the first and fifth (thumb and pinkie) toes of the hindlimb."2. Just as an aside, Mesohippus ("Middle-Horse") earned it's name because it is an "intermediate between the eohippus-like horses of the Eocene, (which don't look much like our familiar "horse") and more "modern" horses." I am reminded of the old joke: A scientist is showing a picture of two organism to an audience. A creationist jumps up and exclaims "But there is a gap between them! Where is the transitional?" The scientist takes out a picture of the transitional fossil and shows it to the creationist. "Aha!" exclaims the creationist "Now you have TWO gaps!"3. The site I linked to goes on to describe some anatomical features of Mesohippus, including how its feet differ from those of Hyracotherium: I am also quite sure that one could list alot more if one did just a little research into the literature concerning fossil horses.4.A. Take a look at the two fossil horses Orohippus and Mesohippus(not to scale): Now, when I showed you an example of a single celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism, you said: "it did not change into a drastically different species."
I ask you, if unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different, how can you try to disprove horse evolution by saying that Mesohippus is drastically different from Orohippus?4.B. Furthermore, you yourself said that "they are all different types of horses". Then you link to a site which tries to disprove horse evolution by saying that there are gaps where the fossils are too different! What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Yes, Australopithecus is an ape, as are humans, since both belong to the primate order. No they couldn't be, anymore than a Mesohippus could very well be a modern horse! While Homo erectus is quite similar to modern humans, there are a multitude of differences, including a smaller brain size.Furthermore, if all fossils can be so easily classified into "Ape" and "Human" kind, why are there such huge disgreements between creationists as to what fossils belong where? Comparison of all skulls In museums and universities. Go and look for the displays marked "Homo ergaster", "Homo rudolfensis" and "Homo habilis" Well, I know of no modern men that have a brain size 74% of normal people and a massive brow ridge! Yes, those sorts of people aren't easily convinced by origin stories that don't involve magic and people being made from dirt. It's also not too convincing for people who are unaware of the fossils on display in museums around the world.
similarly, people who believe in a flat earth wouldn't be too convinced by accounts of Magellan's voyages. It's already been shown that you're wrong, but convergent evolution is quite an interesting topic. Essentially, two unrelated organism evolve similar structures in response to similar environmental conditions, such as body shapes for dolphins and ichthyosaurs. Batesian mimicry is also quite interesting. Not really, that is more an analogy to a misconception about evolution, the great chain of being, which sees evolution as a ladder with more advanced organisms and less advanced organisms.
A better analogy would be: you have some cars. They become isolated: One group lives in a country that is flat with long, straight roads. The other group lives in rough, rocky and muddy terrain without roads. Let's imagine for a moment that there are predators that kill cars and thus prevent them from reproducing. In the flat country, cars that are fast and aerodynamic will be able to escape this predator and reproduce. Thus, after several generations these cars will tend to resemble sports cars and formlula 1 racers. On rough terrain, however, such cars would only get stuck and killed. Thus, cars that were very rugged and able to traverse the terrain would be more likely to escape predation and survive to eventually breed and produce offspring. After a few generations, they would eventually look like jeeps and hummvees. Why? I don't On earth? Unlikely. No one ever claimed to have fossil evidence of a species more intelligent than humans.This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-25-2004 09:21 AM

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Slight Nitpick:
You're = You are
Your = possessive form of "you" e.g. your boots, your feet Then please give us some examples of "major kinds." Or even just define "kinds." Or tell us what mechanism prevents the splitting of groups above the level of the family.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Perhaps he didn't want to waste his time with refuting yet another creationist website, and trusted that somebody else would do so. I already refuted the "problems" on that site (All two of them!) back in message 59. While I do realize that you have a lot of people to respond too, it would be nice if you could respond to my questions and refutations before going around and accusing people of being unable to refute your site. Why? I have already spend alot of time writing a refutation of your first site (even with pictures that I had to edit and host myself!), so why would I bother doing another one when you haven't even adressed my first one? If this is how you are going to argument on this site, you might as well leave, since ignoring other peoples responses is not a good way of discussing things. Yes, two lineages which we discussed in detail. If you want more examples I suggest you follow Crashfrog's advice and take a look at the links given to you, which include hundreads of speciation events. I have already given you an example of evolution being observed on page 1, which you dismissed as not being evolution and not being a radically different species. You then went on to post a link which argues against horse evolution by saying that Orohippus and Mesohippus are too different!
Please, I beg you to respond to my posts back on pages 4 and 5. I am very interested in your responses.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

Modern Human!?! With a massive eyebrow ridge and a cranial capacity of 850cc!?! I would love to see those "scientists" who claim that erectus are modern humans. This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 06:41 AM

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

quote:

---

So far I see two lineages with the horse lineage disputed/discredited..

---

Whoah, Whoah, Whoah, not so fast! You still haven't responded to my questions in post 59, where I showed that your first site was bunk. It would be nice if you could actually discuss these things instead of just linking to creationist websites.This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:01 PM

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

quote:

---

There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus
-http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

---

quote:

---

Although nearly modern postcranially there are one or two interesting features. In modern man the spinous processes of the upper vertebrae slope downwards: in apes and in erectus they are horizontal, suggesting powerful arm muscles. The rib cage is also conical or bell shaped, as in apes, rather than barrel shaped as in humans. The pelvis is narrow, and the femur rather australopithicine in the long neck and low angle of the shaft.
-http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_01.html

---

I think I trust the university of Leeds more than a creationist website.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

Just a general remark regarding erectus skulls: The brow ridges aren't the only thing that differentiates erectus skulls from those of modern humans:

quote:

---

Homo erectus heads were strikingly different from ours in shape. Their foreheads were relatively shallow, sloping back from very prominent brow ridges (i.e., supraorbital tori click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced). Compared to modern humans, the Homo erectus brain case was more elongated from front to back and less spherical.
-http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm

---

Edit: While we're on subject on erectus anatomy, I found a site that refutes the argument that fossils such as Kow Swamp are erectus, and in doing so mentions a few things about erectus' anatomy: Kow Swamp: is it Homo erectus?Edit2: SkepticToAll, please don't let me pressure you into replying to these posts before my earlier ones. I would like to hear your response to post 59 before we continue to discuss erectus et al.This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:47 PM

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

As would be a reply to post 59

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

First, notice that the charts both begin with Hyracotherium... There are no horses or any other animals shown before Hyracotherium. The reason no previous fossils are shown on the chart is because none has been found. In other words, there is an important gap in the horse fossil record right at the beginning of the chart.

---

1. We just spent the entire thread explaining to you why it's impossible to have all the fossils until the beginning of life! Fossilization is rare!

---

That is a blatant misquote

---

How? That's the one one of the (two) arguments that webpage is making, that not knowing what animal came before the earliest animal in the lineage somehow counts against the entire lineage. But, as I have said before we would expect there to be an end to the lineage where we don't know what came before (aside: we do now what came before, a condylarth (thanks Mark24)) because fossilization is so rare and not all animals are fossilized.

quote:

---

just answer what is the animal before Hyracotherium?
Or we don't have a complete lineage anyhow..

---

Brilliant! Just what I predicted with #2. allow me to quote myself:

quote:

---

2. How could we possibly statisfy this "critique"? If we were to show the author of that webpage the animal that predated Hyracotherium, he would only turn around and say "Aha! Now you don't know what animal came before THAT! You have filled in one gap, but now you have a new one!"
  —RRoman

---

We DO have a complete lineage, from Hyraqcotherium, an animal, as your website puts it, "the size of a dog with four toes (like a dog) and teeth suited to browsing on trees," to the modern horse. Now you are saying that it invalidates the lineage that we don't have the animal directly before the lineage.

quote:

---

See those two pictures in YOUR post
  —SkepticToAll

---

I assume you mean the pictures of Orohippus and Mesohippus

quote:

---

I would accept that as two specimens as part of the lineage

---

Ok

quote:

---

The problems is you cannot show me a lineage from an animal very UNLIKE a horse to the modern horse

---

let me ask you, why did you post that first webpage? It seems that you have opinions comletely different from the author of that webpage. Hyracotherium IS very unlike a horse. Your webpage:

quote:

---

Hyracotherium (also known as Eohippus) an animal the size of a dog with four toes (like a dog) and teeth suited to browsing on trees.

---

And how exactly is Hyracotherium very similar to a horse? Tell me, how many extra toes must an animal have before you consider it different? Everybody has been telling you that hyracotherium is very different from a modern horse, including your creationist link.

quote:

---

I believe your link had more specimens but there were HUGE gaps especially from NON-horse like to horse like

---

Could you be a bit more specific? There are seven transitional genuses between Hyracotherium and Equus, and frankly, I can't be bothered to link to every picture on that site.

quote:

---

repost the link

---

Here it is: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htmAnd the creationist link under discussion: http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm

quote:

---

if you have got a whole series of changes from an animal very different from a horse to a horse - my argument would not seem plausible

---

Frankly, I am not even very sure what your argument is. First you say that the lineage is invalid because they are all too similar ("The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses.") Then you post a link which says that the lineage is invalid because they are too different!

quote:

---

quote:

---

if unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different

---

Not sure where you got that from..

---

From Message 11.Allow me to reiterate our conversation: Message 1SkepticToAll:
The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence Message 10RRoman:
...Chlorella vulgaris...unicellular...multicellular Chlorella growth form ... Message 11SkepticToAll:
Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species. It has NOTHING to do with the process of Evolution necessary to create a drastically different species.. Message 25SkepticToAll:
Link to creationist article claiming horse evolution is invalid because the different fossils are too dissimilar. Message 59RRoman
if unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different, how can you try to disprove horse evolution by saying that Mesohippus is drastically different from Orohippus?You still haven't answered that question. And it would be nice if you could keep track of what you say. It's alot of work doing all the UBB code.
(on an unrelated note, can anyone tell me how I can insert line breaks into my posts? pressing [Enter] several times doesn't seem to work.)Edit: I apologize that my quotes don't look all too aesthetically pleasing, but it would look worse if I used the qs quotes (due to there being no line breaks). If people want me to use the qs quotes instead, please say so.This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-29-2004 05:29 PM

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

quote:

---

I still maintain that Erectus actually is homo sapiens

---

Figures, considering that you apparently can't tell any organisms within a family apart. erectus=sapiens, unicellular=multicellular, hyracotherium=equus, hey, next you'll be trying to tell us that Hitler was black, Gahndi was an australian aborigne, and Martin Luther King Jr. was chinese.

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog