Show one complete lineage in evolution

Similar "types" of horses.Ok what is the dividing line between macro and micro (or adaptation) then?Notice I said the line. That is not defined by given extremes like fish and reptile. Where is the dividing line at the point where they are closest together?Reptile and mammal are separated by adaptations or macro changes? How about reptile and bird? What about chimp and man? What about a horse with 3 toes and a horse with one?To get the line made clearer we need to get close indeed. Fox and Wolf? Wolf and Dog? Where is the line? What criteria do you use for distinguishing "types"?

And you answered your own question of the first sentence with the next ones.Wings are just arms. It is very clear looking at the form of them that that could be true. Now we need to see what the genetics is (which I don't think we have yet) and we can see how they got the way they are.Here's a scientific prediction:
When we learn about the genes controlling the developement of a bats arms we will find that they are like the genes of near non bat relatives and that the changes when induced will cause arm development to be bat like. They will also be changes that are well within what creationists currently call micro evolution.What is the creation "science" prediction?

deleted duplicateThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-24-2004 03:12 PM

Since you seem to be interested in lineages from one form to another please go here:
Message 1
And supply your defintion of a "transitional" which is what you appear to need to see in your request for lineages.You are ignoring, without adequate explanation as to why, the examples you have been given.

Is there such a huge problem to follow the link and give a definition of what a transitional is?Until it is clear what a transitional is any statment saying they don't exist is meaningless. Let's have that definition. Maybe based on your definition they won't exist. Maybe they will.Since you assert: "...they would exist in great numbers of many kinds" you are clearly an expert on taphonomy. Please show your calculations that support this assertion based on your expertise.

Please go to this thread:
Message 1and define "transitional". Thank you.Without your understanding of what one would be we can't show you what you need to see. If you can't describe what you are looking for do not ask the question again until you have done some thinking about it.

So you agree, completely, with the definition we have developed in the thread? If so, we can continue; if not please give your own wording of an unambiguous definition in that thread. Please supply references to these suggestions. Some full context quotes would save time if you have them too. Since H erectus' had a number of features not found on modern humans I would be interested in the reasons that these scientists would give for their conclusions. What I suspect is this is BS but I'll wait and see what you produce before I call it. Ok?

Not relevant in the time frames being discussed. The formation of the bearing land bridge is. You're right about this one, of course. That is a total fabrication. I don't care all that much about the agenda. I'd be much more interested in how many creations the author is suggesting there were. The biblical creation week still doesn't explain these fossils either. Is he retracing history and suggesting not one but many creations. This was given up a couple of centuries ago when the number of creations got a bit too high to be anything but laughable.

Sorry RB, you can't use an undefined word; it makes your statement meaningless. Since transitionals (using the understanding of that word that we have so far) do exist you must be using a different meaning of the word. When you supply your definition of the word we can continue the discussion. It appears to be wrong indeed. If you want to discuss PE and tell us what you think it is all about I suggest you propose a thread on the topic. I won't bother to do that in case you don't wish to persue it. So far it appears you have a pretty weak understanding of what it is about.You also haven't offered you interpretation of the fossil record in any meaningfull way.

From your second reference:

quote:

---

However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).

---

Unfortunately, (for you) this is an example of the kind of deliberatly misleading things that these sites use. This is exactly the kind of erroneous analysis that suggested 150 years ago that women were less intelligent than men.Is a whale more intelligent than a man, by a large mutliple? Is an elephant? No! Why not?Because what counts is the ratio between brain size and body mass. That is what needs to be examined. Notice how your reference picks pygmies. That is dishonest!As for the brow ridges they show skulls and a picture. I don't know the answer to that one. Here is a guess -- show me the skull of individuals that are supposed to have erectus like brows -- you will find the comparison less interesting when done.Note also that as erectus were evolutionarily much closer to us that to the common ancestor between us and apes you would expect them to be closer to us. You do understand that right? Some of it's features should be very nearly modern. Others will be less so.Also from your site:

quote:

---

Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature.

---

In fact, it is now understood that they didn't come from the same creature. It turns out, however, that the authenticated legs bones of erectus aren't all that much different.This line in your source is basically meaningless "filler". It isn't discussed further. It is just there to try to sow suspicion but can't actually be used to support the point that they are attempting to make. This is intellectual slight-of-hand.Bad source! Naughty source! Go to the back of the class!

That's all very well but useless unless you can give reasons why you wouldj continue to maintain that in the face of the opinion of those who study them and the evidence we can see in photos.As for the link it would be nice if you stated why you thihk it is relevant. I did a quick scan of it. Here is what I think.I like the fact that the author of the article included discussion with individuals who disagree with him. That is something I look for when assessing a source.It is unfortunate that the whole thing seems to be based on opinions without carefull analysis. At least no such analysis is given.
What is done in the literature is analysis of careful and numerous measurements of the specimens. Then computer analysis can give an idea of just how different (or not) specimens are. This removes some, if not all, of the subjectivity.As an example; in looking at the few semi-clear photos supplied I do not see significant brow ridges in the KS types. They certainly do not appear to be like those of the H. erectus photos. But, as I said, this is not the way to do this.It would be very interesting if some intermediates between H. sapiens and H. erectus lived so recently. I think that is what the author is suggesting. However, I'm not sure what that means. There were probably such intermediates in the 300,000 years BP range.(btw, I don't think it's important enough to check but I think the author may have some of his dates for H. erectus wrong.)

Whatever you concede what has been shown is a number of different species with certain characteristics that when closer to today are closer to those of modern horses. In great detail these fossils have horse characteristics. They are arranged with those older being less like a modern horse.Why is that?

One problem you have is that you reach conclusions without knowing much about the subject at hand. Let's look over the history a bit more.When Darwin proposed his ideas there was pretty well no fossil evidence. (Of course,"no" is a bit strong. But in comparison to what we have now that was the case. There was enough to show that there had been different living things that were no longer around.)He made a statement that the changes were slow and gradual. It was based on the nature of his theory and his observations of artificial selection. It was a reasonable conclusion with the evidence at hand. It was as reasonable as Newton's laws of motion where when they were forumlated 400 years ago.The idea of slow, gradual change is still born out by the fossil record just as Newton's laws are still valid in some circumstance.However, to say that the changes are always slow and gradual isn't right. We have new evidence for that. Not just lack of intermediaries but actual, detailed lineages of shelled sea creatures that show stasis and "rapid" change. This evidence required a change in the consensus view. Science is always conservative so it took some pushing and shoving to get the changes in view accepted.After 300 years we understood Newton's laws to be 'wrong'. I'd say that the changes in the ToE were done pretty quickly by comparison.However, the original idea wasn't fully wrong either. The nature of the ToE isn't fundamentally different even yet. The changes are a result of genetic change and natural selection. The rate of change is better understood.It was a scientific conclusion at the time with the available evidence. The statements Darwin made about rate weren't based on a lot of evidence and to that degree he was out-on-a-limb. To the degree that the evidence didn't cover all possible scenarios you are right: it wasn't as well founded as it should have been.That happens now and then. So what? That is why we continue to gather more evidence in all the sciences. That is why we keep retesting Einstein's ideas too.You seem to have this idea that because a scientific theory is subject to change and modification and even, total falsification that somehow creationism will win out in the end. This is simple not the case.Creationism has been shown to be wrong. It can not be resurrected. There is too much evidence against it. If, somehow, there is anything that requires an actual replacement of the ToE it won't be creationism that is the replacement. It is also very unlikely that an outright replacement will be needed. Just like relativity is a "replacement" for Newton's laws but leaves them useful and accurate enough a lot of the time so would a change to the ToE be a modification leaving the overall idea intact.

That isn't calculus. If it is beyond you then you will just have to give up. You have to understand an argument before you can refute it. A better approach would be to ask some questions. It can be expressed in smaller words and a more simple way.I'be been trying to suggest to you that you will look foolish if you expound on things that you know nothing about. Now you've stepped into territory that you can't even understand when you are given the information. It might be time to ask questions and make a lot less unfounded assertions.But here's a clue. The creationist organizations don't seem to have a coherent answer either. This might be because there isn't one.

Just in case you have any doubt about this: something being beyond you doesn't make it refuted as perfectly good evidence.Also: this example is given in a very clear form. If that is "beyond you" then the reason you don't accept evolution (and perhaps other sciences) is that you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it. That is also not a refutation of the ideas. In fact if something is "beyond" your capacities it would, perhaps, behoove you to refrain from voicing any opinion at all.And, lastly, there is a great deal more material. Some of it is 'beyond' almost all of us here. If you can't handle this simple stuff then you had better take your water wings to the shallow end.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-21-2004 04:21 PM