[_ Old Earth _] Insects & Plants

[jmm9683]

You haven't provided any evidence against the first couple examples.

Because there is no evidance supporting the claim that hey were transitions.
[quote:48bff]
Termites evolved from cockroaches

:smt043

* large size (other termites are much smaller)

Just a variant. big dogs little dogs.

* expanded pronotum ("shield" on the first thoracic segment, reduced in other termites)

See above

* hind wings with an expanded anal fan (absent in other termites)

This means its simply a different kind of termite. or different insect all together

* ovipositor present (absent in all other termites)

See above

* eggs laid in oothecae (clusters in a membrane-enclosed capsule; other termites lay solitary eggs)

See above.

* feet with 5 tarsal segments (all other termites have 4)

Neat! See above.

* harbor endosymbiotic bacterium Blattabacterium, a genus found in cockroaches but not other termites

Your point ?[/quote:48bff]

Deny, deny, deny, that's what I thought.

 

[John]

I knew you would say that by the speed of your follow up post.

There is no evidance of a transition in any species. ALL we have is animals 1 and 2 there is no 1.5

and until you can see that it is pointless to continue this debate.

 

[jmm9683]

I knew you would say that by the speed of your follow up post.

There is no evidance of a transition in any species. ALL we have is animals 1 and 2 there is no 1.5

and until you can see that it is pointless to continue this debate.

Whenever you see something transitional you say it can't possibly be without backing it up. You've been given examples of part one thing and part another. What is a creationist's definition of transitional, an animal with half a head? There are tons of examples of transitions, but I'm sure with your PhD in evolutionary biology you can prove them all false.

 

[John]

Whenever you see something transitional you say it can't possibly be without backing it up.

The problem i have is that they get dubbed "transition" because they share traits, which looks good to a non believer but it does not really mean anything.

You've been given examples of part one thing and part another.

Yes, yes i have, but simply proclaiming that they are evolving or have evolved is ignorant.

What is a creationist's definition of transitional,

To my knowledge we have none in that sense. because transitional animal forms don't exist

There are tons of examples of transitions,

Nope, there are tons of examples of evolutionary scientists imagination running wild.

but I'm sure with your PhD in evolutionary biology you can prove them all false.

Nope, i don't need a Ph.D to do that, a child could.

 

[jmm9683]

Whenever you see something transitional you say it can't possibly be without backing it up.

The problem i have is that they get dubbed "transition" because they share traits, which looks good to a non believer but it does not really mean anything.


[quote:8a960] You've been given examples of part one thing and part another.

Yes, yes i have, but simply proclaiming that they are evolving or have evolved is ignorant.

What is a creationist's definition of transitional,

To my knowledge we have none in that sense. because transitional animal forms don't exist

There are tons of examples of transitions,

Nope, there are tons of examples of evolutionary scientists imagination running wild.

but I'm sure with your PhD in evolutionary biology you can prove them all false.

Nope, i don't need a Ph.D to do that, a child could.[/quote:8a960]

Imaginations running wild, good one. You're pathetic, read about the actual theory you hate so much before you make such ignorant claims. How are you going to prove something false, if your basic understanding is wrong? Plus, you haven't provided one credible source of information debunking transitional fossils. So until you do, you lose.

 

[Jayls5]

jmm9683,

I think before even expending any further effort arguing for transitional fossils, you should get your opponent to describe exactly what criteria would make a species transitional.

My hunch: You'll probably find an impossible set of criteria, or one that doesn't even correspond to modern conceptions of how evolution works.

 

[Snidey]

I knew you would say that by the speed of your follow up post.

There is no evidance of a transition in any species. ALL we have is animals 1 and 2 there is no 1.5

and until you can see that it is pointless to continue this debate.

1, 2, 3, 4...

1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4...

1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25...

1, 1.125, 1.25....

What do these sequences mean to you? Count the gaps:

::fossil:: --gap-- ::fossil::

OYG only one gap! But wait we found another fossil!

::fossil:: --gap-- ::fossil:: --gap-- ::fossil::

Has the gap been addressed or is there now another to contend with? Creationists will always have an increasing number of "gaps" to refer to as we increase our knowledge base in this arena. Saying there is "no evidence" of transition in any species is a sign of CreationWiki-osis, a rare disorder more frequently found in those lacking a scientific degree.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no evidance of a transition in any species. ALL we have is animals 1 and 2 there is no 1.5

Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional between a fish and a land animal would be like?

 

[John]

There is no evidance of a transition in any species. ALL we have is animals 1 and 2 there is no 1.5

Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional between a fish and a land animal would be like?

Hard to say.

Are you referring to like a crocodile or turtle ?

 

[Bryce]

Transitional fossils are an example of microevolution and is not proof of macroevolution or the theory of evolution.
For example;

We searched for, and found, an unbiased example of a transitional fossil species. We are not biasing results by citing references that support the Bible’s creation account or by choosing a poor example of a transitional form that is easy to criticize. This is the best quality example we could locate. This transitional form bridges the gap between trilobites and, uh, well . . . trilobites. You see, although these “transitional fossil species†differ from each other, they are all still trilobites. You could see the same result if you examined dogs at a dog breeder.


This is the fossil head of a Bristolia insolens, a trilobite from the “youngest†geologic layer of these four examples.
----

This is the fossil head of the Bristolia bristolensis, a trilobite from the “second youngest†geologic layer of these four examples.
----

This is the fossil head of the Olenellus mohavensis, a trilobite from the “second oldest†geologic layer of these four examples.
----

This is the fossil head of the Olenellus fremonti, a trilobite from the “oldest†geologic layer of these four examples

*[It helps if you look at them bottom to top.]
They support the Bible’s creation account, which states that different kinds of animals remain the same as when they were created. That is, dogs remain dogs and trilobites remain trilobites. We maintain that there is no true example of a transitional fossil available, and scientists have been trying to find one for a hundred years. If you believe you have a good example, please let me know.

 

[Barbarian]

There are a great many transitional forms among trilobites, including "almost trilobites." Would you like to see them?

I could show you a transitional form between a fish and a land animal, would that also be "microevolution?"

Tell me what you think such a transitional would be like, and I'll see what I can find.

 

[Bryce]

There are a great many transitional forms among trilobites, including "almost trilobites." Would you like to see them?

No thanks :-?

I could show you a transitional form between a fish and a land animal, would that also be "microevolution?"

Perhaps reffering to [and if I'm wrong correct me] the great scientific discovery of the "Tiktaalik roseae" or the Fossil called the missing link from sea to land animals.. Really is an incomplete mosaic life form which is no evidence for evolution.
Evolutionists distort these mosaic properties according to their own preconceptions and maintain that the animal is a transitional form between fish and terrestrial life forms.

Mosaic life forms, however, are very far from being the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution. The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and avian features at one and the same time. But nothing about it constitutes any evidence for the theory of evolution. Mosaic life forms are not what evolutionists need to find in order to back up their claims; they need to find “intermediate forms,†which would have to be with deficient, only half-formed and not fully functional organs.
Yet every one of the organs possessed by mosaic creatures is complete and flawless. They have no semi-developed organs, and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms.

Tell me what you think such a transitional would be like, and I'll see what I can find.

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There are a great many transitional forms among trilobites, including "almost trilobites." Would you like to see them?

No thanks

(creationists are allergic to evidence)

Barbarian asks:
If I could show you a transitional form between a fish and a land animal, would that also be "microevolution?"

(declines to say)

Yep, creationist.

Perhaps reffering to [and if I'm wrong correct me] the great scientific discovery of the "Tiktaalik roseae" or the Fossil called the missing link from sea to land animals.. Really is an incomplete mosaic life form which is no evidence for evolution.

All transitionals are mosaics. Gould coined the word to show that no transitional is ever a smooth transition in all features, but is always advanced in some, and primitive in some. It couldn't be any other way if evolution is true.

Evolutionists distort these mosaic properties according to their own preconceptions and maintain that the animal is a transitional form between fish and terrestrial life forms.

Well, then how about stepping up to the plate and telling us what features you'd expect to see in such a transitional?

The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and avian features at one and the same time.

Somebody's had a little fun with your trust on that one. No avian characteristics at all.

But nothing about it constitutes any evidence for the theory of evolution.

Let's see... mammalian heart and lower jaw, both characteristic for mammals. But it has a reptillian cloaca, lays reptillian eggs, and has a bill similar to those of some therapsid reptiles. And it has a very primitive milk gland system, and a rather inefficient temperature regulation system. And the shoulder girdle is the complex reptilian form, not the simplified mammalian version.

Pretty good transitional. No bird stuff, though.

Mosaic life forms are not what evolutionists need to find in order to back up their claims; they need to find “intermediate forms,†which would have to be with deficient, only half-formed and not fully functional organs.

Again, you've been had on that one. Every transitional species has to be a complete and successful animal in itself, or it couldn't live to give rise to others. Creationists often make up silly ideas and then demand that science accept them.

Yet every one of the organs possessed by mosaic creatures is complete and flawless.

Hmm... no. For example, the milk glands of platypuses lack teats. And they waste milk that way. And their temperature regulation system is only partially functional. But it works well enough to survive. And that's all that's needed.

They have no semi-developed organs, and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms.

Um, lampreys, for example, have semi-developed kidneys. Reptiles have semi-developed hearts. Both of these are fully developed in mammals.

Barbarian asks for characteristics of a fish/tetrapod transitional:
Tell me what you think such a transitional would be like, and I'll see what I can find.

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

Not that I expect you to. Creationists always bail out at this point. For obvious reasons.

 

[Bryce]

(creationists are allergic to evidence)

Aha, if you must then go for it.
I never said there was not evidence, if there is I doubt it being %100 accurate/foolproof, but I'm no good with fossils and would most likely have no idea as to what you were showing me, which is why I declined the offer.

(declines to say)
Yep, creationist.

You failed to give me the name transitional form, I took a shot in the dark.
Let me try again,
If you could show me a transitional form, I would say no that is was not micro-evolution.

All transitionals are mosaics. Gould coined the word to show that no transitional is ever a smooth transition in all features, but is always advanced in some, and primitive in some. It couldn't be any other way if evolution is true.

Yes and the lack of evidence for gradual transitions in the fossil record backs that up nicely.

Well, then how about stepping up to the plate and telling us what features you'd expect to see in such a transitional?

I'm no scientist, I wouldn't know what features to ask for.
Is my request too hard to fulfill?

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

Somebody's had a little fun with your trust on that one. No avian characteristics at all.

Proof? Not saying your wrong, however I searched and there was nothing that stated the platypus hade no avian characteristics

Let's see... mammalian heart and lower jaw, both characteristic for mammals. But it has a reptillian cloaca, lays reptillian eggs, and has a bill similar to those of some therapsid reptiles. And it has a very primitive milk gland system, and a rather inefficient temperature regulation system. And the shoulder girdle is the complex reptilian form, not the simplified mammalian version.

Some similar characteristics, but evolution?
Your going to have to show me the record on that one

Again, you've been had on that one. Every transitional species has to be a complete and successful animal in itself, or it couldn't live to give rise to others.

So there will be no intermidiate forms?

Hmm... no. For example, the milk glands of platypuses lack teats. And they waste milk that way. And their temperature regulation system is only partially functional. But it works well enough to survive. And that's all that's needed.

Apes seem to survive, why evolve into man when it already has all that is needed. I'd say man is less-capable than ape really.

They have no semi-developed organs, and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms.

Um, lampreys, for example, have semi-developed kidneys. Reptiles have semi-developed hearts. Both of these are fully developed in mammals.

But every transitional species has to be a complete and successful animal in itself, or it couldn't live to give rise to others, correct?

Barbarian asks for characteristics of a fish/tetrapod transitional:
Tell me what you think such a transitional would be like, and I'll see what I can find.

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

^

 

[Barbarian]

I never said there was not evidence, if there is I doubt it being %100 accurate/foolproof, but I'm no good with fossils and would most likely have no idea as to what you were showing me, which is why I declined the offer.

If you don't know what we're talking about, what makes you think you are right?

(Barbarian asks what a transitional would be like)

(declines to say)

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep, creationist.

You failed to give me the name transitional form

You dodge the question. F

If you could show me a transitional form, I would say no that is was not micro-evolution.

Good. Now, tell me what the characteristics for a transitional between fish and land animals would be like.

Barbarian observes:
All transitionals are mosaics. Gould coined the word to show that no transitional is ever a smooth transition in all features, but is always advanced in some, and primitive in some. It couldn't be any other way if evolution is true.

Yes and the lack of evidence for gradual transitions in the fossil record backs that up nicely.

Usually. Evolution tends to move at a variable pace. But Gould pointed out some gradual cases like horses, where it is smooth and gradual.

Barbarian suggests:
Well, then how about stepping up to the plate and telling us what features you'd expect to see in such a transitional?


I'm no scientist, I wouldn't know what features to ask for.
Is my request too hard to fulfill?

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

All organisms are complete. You're going to have to be a little more specific.

Barbarian on the platypus:
Somebody's had a little fun with your trust on that one. No avian characteristics at all.

Proof?

No avian apomorphies at all. No feathers, no flow-through lung, no hollow bones, no air sacs, etc. All reptilian or mammalian. If you doubt it, show me one birdlike thing about them.

Not saying your wrong, however I searched and there was nothing that stated the platypus hade no avian characteristics

Let's see... mammalian heart and lower jaw, both characteristic for mammals. But it has a reptillian cloaca, lays reptillian eggs, and has a bill similar to those of some therapsid reptiles. And it has a very primitive milk gland system, and a rather inefficient temperature regulation system. And the shoulder girdle is the complex reptilian form, not the simplified mammalian version.

Some similar characteristics, but evolution?

Yep. Plus fossil ones have more primitive characters, like teeth in adults.

Your going to have to show me the record on that one

Since you claim that it has avian characteristics, you're going to have to support that with some facts, or you lose. That's how it works.

Barbarian observes:
Again, you've been had on that one. Every transitional species has to be a complete and successful animal in itself, or it couldn't live to give rise to others.

So there will be no intermidiate forms?

Of course there will be. But they will be complete in their own right.

Barbarian observes:]
Hmm... no. For example, the milk glands of platypuses lack teats. And they waste milk that way. And their temperature regulation system is only partially functional. But it works well enough to survive. And that's all that's needed.

Apes seem to survive, why evolve into man

They didn't. They evolved into apes. In their own way, they are well-adapted. Unfortunately, their habitat is shrinking.

They have no semi-developed organs,

Hands. They have very good hands, but ours are a bit more evolved, and work even better. Brains. Theirs are large and very, very good. But ours are better yet.

and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms.

Monkeys. The earliest apes were quite monkey-like, and at a certain point in the fossil record, you can't say for sure which is which.

Barbarian observes:
Um, lampreys, for example, have semi-developed kidneys. Reptiles have semi-developed hearts. Both of these are fully developed in mammals.

But every transitional species has to be a complete and successful animal in itself, or it couldn't live to give rise to others, correct?

Right. Their physiology is such that semi-developed hearts and kidneys work fine for them.

Barbarian asks for characteristics of a fish/tetrapod transitional:
Tell me what you think such a transitional would be like, and I'll see what I can find.

Somthing complete, that creationist scientists have not already been able to explain.
Or Intermediate forms

Barbarian suggests:
Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

 

[Bryce]

If you don't know what we're talking about, what makes you think you are right?

Simply put, I've never seen anything to show otherwise.

(declines to say)

You tell me, I've never seen anything of the sort showing macro-evolution.
If you have, then by all means

You dodge the question. F

What? I awnsered it in the sentence below, you even quoted me.

Good. Now, tell me what the characteristics for a transitional between fish and land animals would be like.

One showing Macro-evolution, I don't mind the characteristics.

Usually. Evolution tends to move at a variable pace. But Gould pointed out some gradual cases like horses, where it is smooth and gradual.

And was the horse theory not discredited 50 years ago?
Macro-evolution has never been observed.

Well, then how about stepping up to the plate and telling us what features you'd expect to see in such a transitional?

One showing Macro-evolution, I don't mind the features.

All organisms are complete. You're going to have to be a little more specific.

One showing Macro-evolution, I don't mind the specifics.
Barbarian on the platypus:

No avian apomorphies at all. No feathers, no flow-through lung, no hollow bones, no air sacs, etc. All reptilian or mammalian. If you doubt it, show me one birdlike thing about them.

They have hollow bones, correct?

Let's see... mammalian heart and lower jaw, both characteristic for mammals. But it has a reptillian cloaca, lays reptillian eggs, and has a bill similar to those of some therapsid reptiles. And it has a very primitive milk gland system, and a rather inefficient temperature regulation system. And the shoulder girdle is the complex reptilian form, not the simplified mammalian version.

So in otherwords;
"The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and [perhaps] avian features at one and the same time."

Of course there will be. But they will be complete in their own right.

:roll:

They didn't. They evolved into apes. In their own way, they are well-adapted. Unfortunately, their habitat is shrinking.

Any proof?

Hands. They have very good hands, but ours are a bit more evolved, and work even better. Brains. Theirs are large and very, very good. But ours are better yet.

Micro-evolution?

Monkeys. The earliest apes were quite monkey-like, and at a certain point in the fossil record, you can't say for sure which is which.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif
You can't say much is for sure when talking of evolution

Right. Their physiology is such that semi-developed hearts and kidneys work fine for them.

So there semi-developed is eqivilant to that of a complete in another animal?

Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

Take your own advice.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
If you don't know what we're talking about, what makes you think you are right?

Simply put, I've never seen anything to show otherwise.

Sounds like an atheist explaining why he thinks there is no God.

(Barbarian asks what he would consider a transitional, since he argues there are none)

(declines to say)

Yep. Creationist.

Barbarian suggests:
Now, tell me what the characteristics for a transitional between fish and land animals would be like.

One showing Macro-evolution, I don't mind the characteristics.

So if you have no idea what it would be like, what makes you think you'd recognize it? You guys are all alike. You come on like you know something about it, and then when asked back it up, you run for cover.

Barbarian observes:
Usually. Evolution tends to move at a variable pace. But Gould pointed out some gradual cases like horses, where it is smooth and gradual.

And was the horse theory not discredited 50 years ago?

Nope. In fact, Bob just tried to refute the transistionals that led to modern horses, and failed. Would you like to give it a try.

Macro-evolution has never been observed.

First directly observed case was in 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckiana.

Barbarian suggests one more time:
Well, then how about stepping up to the plate and telling us what features you'd expect to see in such a transitional?

(again declines to say)

Yep. A creationist.

Barbarian observes:
All organisms are complete. You're going to have to be a little more specific.

(again declines to say)

Consistently creationist.

Barbarian on the platypus:
No avian apomorphies at all. No feathers, no flow-through lung, no hollow bones, no air sacs, etc. All reptilian or mammalian. If you doubt it, show me one birdlike thing about them.

They have hollow bones, correct?

No. Even the long bones are filled with marrow, as in all other mammals I know about.

Barbarian observes
Let's see... mammalian heart and lower jaw, both characteristic for mammals. But it has a reptilian cloaca, lays reptilian eggs, and has a bill similar to those of some therapsid reptiles. And it has a very primitive milk gland system, and a rather inefficient temperature regulation system. And the shoulder girdle is the complex reptilian form, not the simplified mammalian version.

So in otherwords;
"The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and [perhaps] avian features at one and the same time."

No. No avian features in a platypus. You've been snockered on that. Of course, it makes sense for a primitive mammal to have traits associated with therapsid reptiles. They evolved from therapsid reptiles.

Barbarian observes:
They didn't. They evolved into apes. In their own way, they are well-adapted. Unfortunately, their habitat is shrinking.

Any proof?

Yes. There are quite a number of transitionals between primitive primates and modern apes. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Barbarians on apes:
Hands. They have very good hands, but ours are a bit more evolved, and work even better. Brains. Theirs are large and very, very good. But ours are better yet.

Micro-evolution?

If you think the difference between a man and a chimpanzee is microevolution. That's not the ways scientists use it.

You can't say much is for sure when talking of evolution

I can tell you're upset to learn about this. But you should not be afraid of the truth.

Barbarian on simpler chordates:
Right. Their physiology is such that semi-developed hearts and kidneys work fine for them.

So there semi-developed is eqivilant to that of a complete in another animal?

All animals are complete. And "semi-developed" is really not applicable to living things, which are all fully developed.

Barbarian observes:
Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

(still refuses to support his claims)

Yep. Creationist.

 

[Bryce]

Sounds like an atheist explaining why he thinks there is no God.

:roll: The bible is my evidence.

(Barbarian asks what he would consider a transitional, since he argues there are none)

There are transitionals, I even posted a few earlier.
However they prove little to nothing.

So if you have no idea what it would be like, what makes you think you'd recognize it? You guys are all alike. You come on like you know something about it, and then when asked back it up, you run for cover.

You dodged giving an answer with insult. :roll:

Nope. In fact, Bob just tried to refute the transistionals that led to modern horses, and failed. Would you like to give it a try.

Gladly, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin.
The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!
The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA1, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other.

Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentinaâ€â€fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) highâ€â€and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger

1.)
In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse†fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.
2.)
In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.
3.)
In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution†of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.
4.)
If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest†horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!
5.)
There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
6.)
Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.


Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even
fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed informationâ€â€what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been
alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

“I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentableâ€Â.

He was an evolutionist, correct?

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.


"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.†David S. Woodruff

First directly observed case was in 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckiana.

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

How is that macro-evolution?

yep, creationist

[Barbarian fails to reply]

Once again you've dodged giving answer with insult
Yep, evolutionist.

No. Even the long bones are filled with marrow, as in all other mammals I know about.

What about the avian Z sex chromosome?
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.p...pic=635727&pid=589385205&st=0&#entry589385205

No. No avian features in a platypus. You've been snockered on that.

I'm not yet convinced that the platypus has no avian characteristics though you may be correct which is why I put the [perhaps] in there.

Of course, it makes sense for a primitive mammal to have traits associated with therapsid reptiles. They evolved from therapsid reptiles.

Mere speculation, not evolution
Looking at the platypus I would say it would just about have to be It would have to be just about evolved from everything.

If you think the difference between a man and a chimpanzee is microevolution. That's not the ways scientists use it.

The difference is they are 2 seperate beings all-together.

I can tell you're upset to learn about this. But you should not be afraid of the truth.

Upset? Hardly, the sole reason I'm here is to talk to people like you so I can see and learn the reasoning for both sides.
http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif
Afraid of the truth? What truth is there in evolution that was based on facts? I hardly consider a contreversial theory to be the truth. :roll:

Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

(still refuses to acknowlege my response)

Yep. Evolutionist.

Man up, give me somthing that will put my beliefs in question. You can use any of the details you see fit.
Again, I would not know what characteristics to ask for.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sounds like an atheist explaining why he thinks there is no God.

The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution†of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

You can look at the skeletons of horses I showed you. In science, reality is what's important.

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't.

Sorry, but they lied to you about that. The order in which I showed the skeletons is the order in which they first appear in the rocks.

In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest†horses have been found at or near the surface.

Trilobites have been found on the surface, and they are from the Cambrian, much, much older. Sometimes, erosion exposes older rock. If this surprises you, you've got a lot to learn.

Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!

Sounds interesting. Give us a checkable source for that story. How do I know you won't do that? Just a hunch...

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen.

North America.

Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption.

Sorry, they lied to you about that.

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size.

Wrong. That only happens in domesticated horses, by rigorous and artificial means of breeding. And even then, they don't look like smaller horses, they look like midget regular horses. The proportions are all wrong. Wild examples of Equus are remarkably constant in size, as were most earlier species of horses.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.

Well, let's see... we now have transitionals between...

Ungulates and whales.
Hominoids and humans
salamanders and frogs
lizards and snakes
dinosaurs and birds
dogs and bears
and a great many more. Would you like to learn about some of them in a different thread?

And now, if you have enough confidence in your beliefs to test them, how about showing me where n that sequence of transitionals you can find a gap between Hyracotherium and Equus?

No more excuses.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time.

Well, not with them. They were a different lines, living in different environments. We're only talking about the ones that led to Equus; there were quite a few other lineages.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.†David S. Woodruff

Let's test that assumption. Find me a gap in that sequence I posted. You don't have to depend on edited quotes from books you never read (how do I know you never read them? : ) Just take a look at the evidence. If you can find a notable gap, you're right. If not, you're wrong.

Barbarian on the first speciation:
First directly observed case was in 1904. O. gigas from O. lamarckiana.

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Right. Polyploidy is an interesting type of speciation, because it works suddenly.

How is that macro-evolution?

Evolution of a new species. That's what macro-evolution is.

(assertion that monotremes have hollow bones)

No. Even the long bones are filled with marrow, as in all other mammals I know about.

What about the avian Z sex chromosome?
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?s ... y589385205

Monotremes have the mammalian X and Y chromosomes. There are some homologies with the avian chromosome, but they are mammalian. Mammals have some homologies with avian rhodopsin, too. But since they evolved from the same group of reptiles, the archosaurs, that's not surprising.

Barbarian observes:
No. No avian features in a platypus. You've been snockered on that.

I'm not yet convinced that the platypus has no avian characteristics though you may be correct which is why I put the [perhaps] in there.

It's true. You'll not find one.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, it makes sense for a primitive mammal to have traits associated with therapsid reptiles. They evolved from therapsid reptiles.

Mere speculation, not evolution

Nope. Wrong again. Genetics, molecular biology, transitional forms of jaws, ears, and other structures, all point to that.

Looking at the platypus I would say it would just about have to be It would have to be just about evolved from everything.

It has the typical therapsid shoulder structure, a cloaca, minimal endothermy, reptilian eggs, and other features that do that.

Barbarian observes:
If you think the difference between a man and a chimpanzee is microevolution. That's not the ways scientists use it.

I can tell you're upset to learn about this. But you should not be afraid of the truth.

Upset? Hardly,

I read the denial, but your behavior says something else.

What truth is there in evolution that was based on facts? I hardly consider a contreversial theory to be the truth.

It's not controversial to people who know what it is. If you take lists from the Discovery Institute and Project Steve, about 0.3% of biologists doubt evolution.

Barbarian suggests:
Man up, and tell me what characteristics. If you have faith in your beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

(refuses to say)

Of course. Fact is, you don't even know what one would be like, do you?

Again, I would not know what characteristics to ask for.

So if you don't know what you're talking about, what makes you think you're right?

 

[Dunzo]

Speak of the devil: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 1197.story