Show one complete lineage in evolution

The shark descended from a primitive order of sharks, a long lineage, its beginning predating almost all orders of animals that exist today. Even insects only appeared after the first sharks. Is this truly believable? Or is it pure speculation, a fairy tale or science fiction invented by ambitious scientists?
Firstly, i can see the logic in evolution and how small changes over time can result in a supposedly different species, (meaning they do not mate with each other but can) but to be fair to the Creationists - where is the complete lineage?
What evolutionists are lying about is the actual lineage? There is no fossil evidence of ANY complete lineage!
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!
And to criticize Creationism (which is not a science but a collection of assorted counterarguments)does NOT prove evolution.
I challenge anyone to show me a complete lineage: whales, lions tigers. bear in mind I need to see ancestors that are 'different' not elephants with differerent amount of tusks. e.g show me an elephant ancestor that is very unlike an elephant..
This is the basic and most damning thing for evolutionists - there is no complete lineage (and statistically there should be by now!)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.The question then remains: how long can the Theory of Evolution hold up before evidence on the contrary is found. This is the ultimate test of any theory in science.

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.

---

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..My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand?The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses..

quote:

---

Did you read the fucking abstract?

---

yes, i read the fucking abstract..
From the link below:

quote:

---

Examples of a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.

---

The definition of a species is too vague..IN the animal kingdom even a small change and it is defined as a different species.There seems to be no general rule..
Hell, if you go by that 'don't mate with each other rule' then we are to assume that hundreds of years ago negroes and caucasions were different species but now they are because they mate with each other?This link casts a lot of doubt on evolution to be accepted as fact:
http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-speciations.htmAnd why do people assume I am a creationist? Am i supposed to accept everything? I have done enough trying to 'prove' evolution to myself - it seems far easier not to accept it if no one can come up with some reasonable answers...
For starters what about that link above? Is is false , a lie? If so please inform me...

I believe there is a problem with your alleged horses

quote:

---

You want to be shown an example of an animal changing over time, with small changes resulting in a very different creature. But a very well documented case, which clearly shows a 20" fruit-eating animal, with an arched back, short snout, short neck and paws on the end of its' short legs changing over time to become the horses we love and lose money on today, isn't good enough!!!

---

Show me the link to this ... I have to see it again - I don't remember seeing anything like this..To clarify my point - most of what evolutionary theory proves is changes that occur in population that already HAD a specific trait in their genetic makeup.What I like to know is how for example did a bat evolve? The original animal did not have wings. What is the process involved here?
I am not satisfied with the Random Mutation theory - it seems highly unlikely that an animal would randomly mutate a pair of wings.. Perhaps someone can show me or provide links.You should see how this is very different from a population becoming increasingly smaller - e.g smallness was beneficial.. BUT smallness was already a trait that was present - no?There are scientists (non evolutionists) who have brought this point out too - of course they have stated it more succinctly and detailed than me!

I have looked at a number of these links provided and given myself a big head ache.
As far as the horse 'lineage' goes I have a link here that confirms my suspicions:
http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htmBut, here is the thing ..
There is no better 'alternative theory' to the creation of life, since to be honest, you have to be God to know all the processes that led to the creation of the universe.
However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence.
There are many books on evolution that mislead people into believing that here is a complete lineage from ape to man - rubbish!
In reality the austropoliphiticus IS an ape. and Homo Erectus could very well be a modern human. Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape? Show something approximately midway between the two and we can forget about horses and sea shells and stuff - the case is closed.
Now i know you will argue that austropoliphiticus could walk and was a more 'advanced' ape while erectus was a more primitive man. In that case, why are there no fossils in between those two!!! There is something wrong here - this is a gap of millions of years.
The 'story' could be: Perhaps a population of austropoliphiticus evolved in a relatively small isolated area into erectus or similar type and then this species was so successfull that it spread all over .. (and that's why we find erectus fossils!)..
Nice story but not too convincing for those who believed that God created Man in his own image. Actually , not too convincing for anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution either.One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?On analogy to evolution is the evolution of cars: we had old cars, then newer ones modelled after older cars until we get the newest car which is more 'advanced'.
YOu have to admit God could have created lifeforms just as we invented newer cars.That mollusks thing - I don't know I tend to agree with the Creationists - they are just one 'kind' but i can't argue on this one I don't have the patience to go through this - I hope someone else has the time to do so..To summarize - I think I understand evolutionary theory and how you can visualize these things..Who knows maybe there is another species that might evolve to be far more intellegent than us..Great science fiction but fossil evidence is another story!

quote:

---

and define "transitional". Thank you.

---

Related to this question

quote:

---

Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape?

---

It should be obvious to you .. why would my definition be different.
Anyway let me explain: Is there another species that has approximately midway between the cranial capacity of the lowest erectus fossil and Australopithecus fossil..
Actually let me put it this way ..
someone mentioned:
Homo ergaster", "Homo rudolfensis" and "Homo habilis"
What are the cranial capacities of these specimen (if they are known)..
You must at least admit there have been a few scientists who have suggested the possibility that Homo erectus is a modern human closely related to the Australian Aborgines.And finally, do we really have enough fossil evidence to even come up with some of the conclusions in the evolution sites - I say this because there is a book called 'Bones of Contention' that shows the amount of fossil evidence for human evolution to be pitifully low (and it does not support creationsism)

To summarize so far there are two suggested 'complete' lineages:1. horse lineage

quote:

---

First of all, I must admit that I have no intention of going to that link of yours.

---

Why? Its a direct link about the problems with horse lineage. Can you not rebut his criticism?Ok - try to rebut this then copied directly from Creation Explanation 3b

quote:

---

Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists.29

​

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

​

b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.

​

c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved.30

​

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox.31 In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind."

​

e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap.32 The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed. These, perhaps, were members of another created kind.

​

f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animals looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the series was a one-toed horse. These animals had some characteristics of skeleton and teeth which differed from modern horses, but they may, perhaps, be classified with them as members of the same original created kind.

​

g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia.33 But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

​

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34

​

i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.35 Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow. Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more believable explanation.

​

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.36

​

To summarize, the alleged horse evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera. The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model. The three groups of genera may represent three created kinds which should be fitted into the classification system as three separate "families" of ungulates. There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of biblical theism leads to created horses.

---

2. invertebrates with calcareous structures (mollusks, corals, echindoderms, bryozoa, brachiozoa, etc)This is an alleged lineage that I am totally unfamiliar with ..I will take a closer look at it....So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution....yet these oversimplistic text books geared for school children are filled with images showing complete lineages for primates, and various other animals. Even if evolution IS a fact - it should not be taught in high school in the current form. It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine..But then this is another topic..

This is from an evolutionist who believes in the regional theory..Discover Financial Services
It seems you have to register though..And this is the point I was making about erectus being a racial variant (subspecies) ...
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

quote:

---

claiming that the theory of evolution is based solely on complete lineages.

---

Not necessary for you maybe since you just want to believe... but for most others...

quote:

---

And why is this a problem? The continents used to be connected, drifted apart, came back together, drifted apart again, etc...

---

To be a complete lineage- it should be roughly around the same place..othewise alternative explanations are easy..
Right now the indian and african elephant are different in different places - similarly you had different horses in different places - that's an alternative explanation.. .

quote:

---

The fact that there are missing samples doesn't disprove anything.

---

Therefore this is not a complete lineage either...See the topic title - complete lineage .. Not every generation but every speciman that show some amount of change .....

quote:

---

Um, no. I don't think you were paying attention in high school biology class.

---

You think I am a high school student? Believe me most high school students in the US (esp public school) are illiterate..
Don't mistake my hurried misspelled postings for anything else...And my point was they do not teach evolution like the way it *should* be presented. Here is a hint - they teach the Out of Africa theory
in the context of a topic such as 'Africa is the cradle of civilization..' ..
Again, the kids don't really care about this stuff - I am just concerned about the way evolution is presented...

quote:

---

The theory of evolution does not depend solely on lineages. Please get this fact straight.

---

But, it would help immensely .. would it not?

quote:

---

It is an observable fact.

---

If you really did work in a genetics lab then you should know what you are observing is NOT agreed to be the evolution that we are discussing right now...So far I see two lineages with the horse lineage disputed/discredited..

I still maintain that Erectus actually is homo sapiens ..Even if I am wrong then the evolution of 'Man' is going to become a lot more controversial awaiting new evidence..You might find this link interesting:
http://home.twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

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 -
just answer what is the animal before Hyracotherium?
Or we don't have a complete lineage anyhow..Now let me make my point:
See those two pictures in YOUR post.. I would accept that as two specimens as part of the lineage..The problems is you cannot show me a lineage from an animal very UNLIKE a horse to the modern horse..
I believe your link had more specimens but there were HUGE gaps especially from NON-horse like to horse like ...
If I am wrong let me know.. and repost the link ..Also, I am not necessarily conceding that Hyracotherium may have evolved into Mesohippus - they simply could have been two different types.. But 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..

quote:

---

if unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different

---

Not sure where you got that from..