Show one complete lineage in evolution

SkepticToAll,To see the absolute best examples of relatively continuous lineages I recommend looking at the invertebrates with calcareous structures (mollusks, corals, echindoderms, bryozoa, brachiozoa, etc). All the mentioned groups have excellent and long fossil records. I try to point these examples out whenever I can because they are often skipped over in favor of horses, hominids, and the like. Which, by the way, all look pretty much the same to us invert guys. A frog and a bird have all of the same parts, you cannot make that claim with a squid, a clam, and a snail each have some unique structures and organ systems. As I mentioned some time ago in an earlier post, when I sent a detailed version of this to Hovind he responded that mollusks probably represent just another kind. If this could be true then all vertebrates could easily fit into a single kind!Two specific examples that come to mind are cephalopod and scaphopod mollusks which both are clearly derived from heliconellids (limpet-like primitive mollusks, class extinct). The transitions are like looking at a movie frame by frame (exaggeration yes, but remarkable). I am including two links that discuss these forms. The entire Paleos.com site is well worth an extensive look, the mollusk section is a gold mine. The book Fossil Invertebrates (A. H. Cheetham and A.J. Rowell, eds.) contains great photos of these transitions.Fehler 403: Nicht gefunden
Palaeos: Page not foundEnjoy!

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

Please explain this again. If I am following the logic correctly you are saying that a long series of smooth transitionals (as exists for many if not most vertebrate groups and the shelled inverts) doesn't qualify as evidence because they are only interpreted as being related? By this then nothing can ever be known about the past if inference can never be used. No transitionals except between all major classes and orders of mollusks, corals, brachipods, echinoderms as well as between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and dinosaurs, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, mesonychids and whales, old world monkeys and apes, horses and stem perisodactyls, and even humans and apes. I guess none of those count because the earliest bat found had modern type wings (this is Gish's the oldest known bat is fully formed so therefore no transitionals in any group can be valid). Only in paraphrased, out of context, 150 years old, fraudulent (sometimes all of the above) quotes ripped from the same old YEC sources. These quotes have all be dealt with and shown to be wrong. And as for embarrasment, I am awed by the vast number of transitionals we have for many invert taxa. Enough so that, if I believed in God, I would thank him repeatedly for providing such a clear lineage to his humble biological servant. Oh boy! This again. Rob, please tell me what you think the theory of punctuated equilibrium is. I am going to go out on a limb and trust you are taking the Morris/Gish/Hovind definition that bears not one bit resemblance to the actual theory. The YEC definition is actually comical as it shows that these people are a)incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper b)trust that their followers are incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper so they are free to deliberately lie. As I understand it this is the logic: Eldredge and Gould wrote a paper about PE, Gould wrote a paper about Goldschmidt called "the return of the hopeful monster", therefore PE is the same theory as Goldschmidt's (that a reptile one day hatched out a modern bird). But please please don't trouble yourself to read any of these papers, let Hovind tell you what they are about because he is an honest chap. I am including the ref to the original paper and a link to Hovind's distorted defintion (I am hoping you will carefully compare the two before speaking with authority about how evolutionists "forced" the idea).Eldredge N and Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative
to phyletic gradualism. In: Models in Paleobiology, edited by T.J.M. Schopf. FreemanCooper, San Francisco, CA, pp.82-115.http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationE...

(deleted repeat post)This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 07-24-2004 06:38 PM

Ha ha. I caught you. We Alaskans are notorious trappers. I baited my trap with mollusks and you took it.If members of the phylum Mollusca are a kind, then differences greater than exist between humans and a sea squirt must have microevolved in the last 7000 years. From an ignorant point of view it might seem that a clam and a snail are the same. But the fact is that they have entirely different organ systems. They are are far different than humans and fishes (humans and fishes belong to the same subphylum, Craniata, while clams are in the subphylum Diasoma and snails are in the subphylum Cyrtosoma). That pain you feel in your head might be something we like to call truth. If it hurts it is because evidence against dogma always hurts. It sucks to find out you were lied to, I know, I was a YEC myself.