[_ Old Earth _] Insects & Plants

[John]

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

Looks like god had fun making this one. 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

The post kinda mixed that one up. Having a an avian homologue in the platypus Y chromosome is no more evidence that it evolved from birds than having the avian homologue in number of limbs means that humans evolved from birds. It just means that humans, birds and monotremes all have a common ancestor that had such features.

Some mammals have departed from the XY system; it doesn't mean they aren't mammals. Monotremes, of course, have the standard mammalian XY system.

 

[Bryce]

Sorry about the long read in advance. :roll:

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

The below copy/paste from http://www.creationinfo.com/evcr/07_04_2005.htm

The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.
-Heribert Nilsson

Alleged Horse Evolution

In a section of his article that is an inexcusable gaffe on his part, and one that surely must represent a terrible embarrassment to his evolutionary colleagues, Quammen resurrected the long-dead concept of “horse evolution.†Several decades ago, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City assembled a famous exhibit of fossil horses, from Eohippus (now known as Hyracotherium) to modern Equus. This exhibit was presented as powerful evidence for Darwinism, with Equus being the ultimate “goal†of equine evolution. Soon thereafter, this story of the horse family was included in practically all biology textbooksâ€â€from which no doubt, Mr. Quammen obtained his outdated information. He wrote:

In North America, for example, a vaguely horselike creature known as Hyracotherium was succeeded by Orohippus, then Epihippus, then Mesohippus, which in turn were succeeded by a variety of horsey American critters. Some of them even galloped across the Bering land bridge into Asia, then onward to Europe and Africa. By five million years ago they had nearly all disappeared, leaving behind Dinohippus, which was succeeded by Equus, the modern genus of horse (p. 12).


Interestingly, another editor of a well-known magazine tried this tact several years earlier, and ended up being publicly scolded for it. John Rennie, editor of Scientific American, wrote in the July 2002 issue of that publication: “Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups…. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus†(2002, 287[1]:83).



Evolutionists themselves long ago abandoned horse evolution as an example of transitional forms, since they no longer believe the fossil record represents anything like a straightforward progression, but instead a bush with many varying branches. As Heribert Nilsson correctly pointed out as long ago as 1954:

The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series (pp. 551-552, emp. added).

Mr. Quammen apparently does not realize that as far back as the 1950s, scientists already had cast aside the false notion of horse evolution via classic Darwinian changes. [In fact, the vast majority of textbooks (including ones published by National Geographic!) have abandoned the horse in favor of the camelâ€â€a species they believe can paint the same picture but that has not been so publicly ridiculed.] David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Illinois, acknowledged:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.... 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 (1979, pp. 24,25).


The late eminent paleontologist of Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson, summed it up well when he wrote: “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature†(1953, p. 125, emp. added). Another scientist from Harvardâ€â€and a man for whom Dr. Simpson served as mentorâ€â€Stephen J. Gould, bemoaned the continued use of what he termed “misinformation†such as horse evolution. He wrote.

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,†as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…) [2000, 109[2]:45; to read his exposure of the fallacy of horse evolution, see Gould, 1991, pp. 155-167].


Creationist Jonathan Sarfati wrote along these lines:

Even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the “sequence†actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make (Sarfati, Jonathan (2002a), “15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry,†[On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/sc ... erican.asp.).


Truer words were never spoken: “One non-horse and many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make.†It will require much better evidence than this from evolutionists if they hope to convince knowledgeable people that their theory is correct (much less a “fact†of science). Apparently, however, they have no better evidence, as was evident from Mr. Quammen’s next feeble attempt to produce an intermediate form in the fossil record.



----------------------------------------
Answers in genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /horse.asp

As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks,’4 and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable’5 and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology.’6 As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart,7 the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved.’

This especially applies to reconstructing the animals from fossil skeletons, which are usually very incomplete. The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut wrote:

‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’8

Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’9

This creature was discovered in 1841 by Richard Owen, one of the leading paleontologists of the day, the inventor of the word ‘dinosaur,’ and a staunch opponent of Darwin. Owen saw no connection with the horse, but thought it was very like a modern-day hyraxâ€â€that is, a rock badger or coney. So he named it Hyracotherium. Other fossils of the same type of creature were later named ‘Eohippus’ or ‘dawn horse’ by more evolutionarily-minded paleontologists. But the name given by the discoverer takes priority. Thus ‘it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse’, according to Kerkut.


Certainly tooth shape can vary widely within a kind, meaning that it’s unwise to assume that different fossil teeth show evolution.18 It is also unwise to be dogmatic about diets based on tooth shape. We showed this with bats,19 and recent evidence has overturned previous thought about ancient horse diets based on tooth shape. The evolutionary paleontologist Bruce MacFadden analyzed teeth from six horse ‘species’ (more likely, varieties within a kind), ‘dated’ at five million years ago.20

Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers.

The researchers also claimed that once hypsodonty evolved, it was impossible to return to having short-crowned teeth again. In a creationist model, this suggests that hypsodonty is a highly specialized condition, which has lost genetic information for any other sort of teeth.

Again, this information loss is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, much like the long-furred bears in the diagram of Ref. 15.

Many evolutionists claim that the horse’s splint bones in their legs (see diagram right) are vestigial, that is, useless leftovers from its alleged evolutionary past. But the evolutionary zoologist Scadding pointed out, ‘vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.’21

He pointed out that the argument is unscientific, because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about.22 Scadding also reminds us that ‘as our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased,’ and pointed out that the 19th century claim of hundreds has been shrunk to a handful of doubtful cases.23 Also, at best, vestigial organs could only prove devolution (loss of information), not evolution.

In particular, the horse’s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs. They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse’s weight as it walks.24
Evolutionists claim that similarities in the limbs of frogs, reptiles and mammals show that they all evolved from a common ancestor. Amphibians (e.g. frogs) supposedly gave rise to reptiles, which gave rise to mammals, including bats and humans, hence the similarities in their limb structures. However, the horse’s leg doesn’t fit very well into this ‘explanation.’

The horse is much more similar to humans in other respects than a frog, but the frog’s limb is much more like ours. The evolutionist tells a story here to ‘explain’ this discrepancy: the horse is different because its legs became adapted to a different way of walking. This is ‘just-so’ story-telling, not science.

Perhaps the horse is part of the pattern God created to tell us there is one Creator (the similarities in living things) but that things did not make themselves (there are oddities which don’t fit any ‘everything made itself’ story).

Furthermore, the frog embryo develops its legs differently from usâ€â€amphibian digits develop by bud growth outwards, while amniote (reptile, bird and mammal) digits are formed as parts of a bony plate are dissolved in between. Yet they arrive at a similar pattern, again indicating the hand of a master designer rather than chance.25 There really is no excuse

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.

When did you show the order of the skeletons? Looked around and couldn't find it.
Don't worry about it though, I've seen a picture of it on talk origins

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.

I do have much to learn, but this does not surprise me.
Why are trilobites found of the surface? After the went extinct at the end of Permian 251 million years ago.
Surely they couldn't of remained on the surface for that long.
[Permian - My high school, lol.]

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

For example, in north-eastern Oregon, the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer. This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other.
-S. Nevins, Creation Research Society Quarterly

Here's somthing I found in a response to it

"In North America the three toed and the one toed horses lived together at the same time. In Nebraska there is a remarkable deposit of fossils where over 200 nearly complete fossils were found. Voorhies, the paleontologist who made the find believed they all died at the same time in the ash cloud from a volcano. Among other fossils there were five species of horse: Pseudhipparion gratum, Cormohipparion occidentale, Protohippus supremus, Astrohipus, Neohipparion, and Dinohippus. The Dinohippus varieties included a mix of tridactyl and monodactyl horses. McFadden said: “The discovery of an exquisitely preserved population of primitive Dinohippus (Pliohippus of Voorhies 1981) from Ashfall Fossil Beds in northeastern Nebraska . . . suggests that some individuals were tridactyl, whereas others were monodactyl (Voorhies 1981). Although that also may have been the case for other primitive equine species previously though to have been exclusively monodactyl.â€Â


So we have a ‘primitive’ three toed horse, an ‘advanced’ three toed horse and a one toed horse all in the same bed having died together. Yet the horse series purports to inform us that the primitive three toed horse evolved into the advanced three toed horse who then evolved into the one toed horse. Seems a little out of sync doesn’t it. The fossil record as we find more and more does not support the horse evolution series.
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

North America.

True, however I believe most of it is un-true as posted above.

Sorry, they lied to you about that.

Proof?

[Bryce:]
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.
[/Bryce]

Wrong.

Are you saying horses don't vary in size?

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.

Some

The proportions are all wrong. Wild examples of Equus are remarkably constant in size, as were most earlier species of horses.

Whats this prove? A once estimated constant has now shown to not line up with the clear evidence we have today?

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?

If it will save me from an insult suggesting that creationist are allergic to proof, then by all means.

Ungulates and whales
Ungulates are hoofed animals, such as cows. The idea that one of these evolved into the present-day whales has long been one of the most difficult pills to swallow in the whole evolutionary pharmacopoeia. A genuine transitional series between these two would cause something of a sensation in creationist circles, so again I was puzzled as to why I had not seen it used by evolutionists in debates, for instance. Looking up the reference given by Archer,7 one is struck by an impressive-looking picture of something which is clearly supposed to represent a part-way land animal/whale.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... athers.asp
Hominoids and humans
http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif
It is conventionally held that humans and chimps differ only very slightly in their DNA. However, new evidence suggests that the difference might be much more drastic. Mutations resulting in DNA insertions and deletions cause much of the genetic difference between the two species, but are typically not included in estimates of diversity. Moreover, areas of significant similarity are often affected by selective constraints. An increasing number of functions are also being discovered for so-called ‘junk DNA’, suggesting similarity in such DNA is not necessarily due to common descent. Additional research should aid the understanding of such important data in the debate over origins.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ ... larity.asp
Salamanders and Frogs
He quotes evolutionist R.L. Carroll: ‘When they first appear in the fossil record, both frogs and salamanders appear essentially modern in their skeletal anatomy. … Despite these similarities, frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very different from one another in skeletal structure and ways of life, both now and throughout their known fossil record … we have found no fossil evidence of any possible antecedents that possessed the specialized features common to all three modern orders. … In the absence of fossil evidence that frogs, salamanders and caecilians evolved from a close common ancestor, we must consider the possibility that each of the modern orders evolved from a distinct group of Paleozoic [supposedly 200 million to 500 million years ago] amphibians.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /frogs.asp
Lizards and Snakes
Evolutionary scientists believe a fossil found a century ago is an intermediate step between lizards and snakes. Allegedly 95 million years old, the fossil is all that’s left of a “snake-like lizard [that] had a small head and willowy body.†The fossil was “found†again in 1996 in a collection bin at an Italian museum.

The most notable feature of the lizard, however, is the disproportion between its fore- and hindlimbs. “Missing were all the bones of its forearms,†the article explains, “including the hands and digits found in modern lizards.†Evolutionary theory holds that snakes evolved when formerly terrestrial lizards lost their limbs after returning to the water. Thus, evolutionary scientists, led by paleontologist Michael Caldwell at the University of Alberta, concluded that this fossil is a “rare†example of such a transition. It’s also a surprise, as Caldwell explained: “For some oddball reason, the forelimbs were lost before the rear limbs, when you would think it would be the opposite.â€Â

Of course, even if snakes really did evolve from lizards, this would in no way support the Darwinist contention that simple life led to complex life. Legless snakes would have lost information (relating to leg development) in the “evolution,†which is fully consistent with the biblical model. For further discussion of snake evolution, read Does this evolutionary claim have any legs? which discusses a surprisingly similar fossil find reported on just under a year ago.
So now some evolutionists are surmising that, far from being ancestral, both Haasiophis and Pachyrhachis are ‘advanced snakes that re-evolved legs’, debunking the idea that snakes came from seagoing mosasaurs that flopped onto land.

Instead they propose that the first snakes evolved from burrowing lizards, losing their legs while their bodies grew longer and more slender. Opinion remains divided, however, with the ‘mosasaur ancestor’ advocates pointing out that there is no evidence at all that snakes and lizards are in any way ‘related’.

Science, March 17, 2000, pp. 1939–1941, 2010–2012.
New Scientist, March 25, 2000, p. 12.

In fact, the supporters of each of these two imagined scenarios are both right in saying that the other theory makes no sense. Whatever these fossil creatures were (whether ‘snake’ or a distinctly separate life form), they reproduced ‘after their kind’  no evolution took place.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /focus.asp

Dinosaurs and Birds
Too long, here's the article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter4.asp

Dogs and Bears
***********See the pic in the link I posted***************
Pointing out a few anatomical similarities between bears and dogs, evolutionists claim that both evolved from a common ancestor. Fossil records, on the other hand, reveal that this is not so. Not a single fossil belonging to a half dog/half bear creature has yet been found, although thousands of fossils show that bears were always bears and dogs were always dogs. The bear skull fossil pictured is evidence that bears have not undergone any evolution.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini ... on_03a.php

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

Directly from .Talk Origins
"1. The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html

Thats the only good one I found ;

"Nor is there any reason to think it should. The fossil record of equids shows that various lineages split into several branches. Evolution was not smooth and gradual; traits evolved at different rates and occasionally reversed. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly. All of this is in accord with the messiness we expect from evolution and from biology in general. "

However demonstrating a gradual, linear progression is needed to show common ancestry. If all one has are the disjointed "branches" of the fossil record then it only shows a lineage if one assumes a common ancestor to begin with. That's the key. Evolutionists assume a common ancestor and they are just trying to find the relationships they already assume exist. But an explanation based on the assumption of evolution cannot be used to demonstrate evolution. Creationists, on the other hand, do not assume a relationship but are trying to see if one even exists. '

"Some creationists consider all the species in the horse family to be the same "kind." They accept "microevolution" from Hyracotherium at the time of the Flood, to modern horses and donkeys first recorded less than four hundred years later (Wood and Cavanaugh 2003). This rate of change is far greater than biologists accept. "

Most creationists see the so-called horse family as consisting of at least three different created kinds so this point would be irrelevant to most creationists.
Talk.Origins' analysis of Wood and Cavanaugh is flawed. They speak of "biological trajectories", not ancestry. The theory is that these "biological trajectories" are a relationship, not a lineage. So while in Wood and Cavanaugh's model Hyracotherium and horses would have had common ancestors that came off the ark, horses would not have evolved from Hyracotherium.
Creationists accept rapid change and speciation, but not the evolutionary hypothesis that requires the addition of new genetic information by chance, as goo-to-you evolution requires. Variation and speciation that is the result of a sorting or loss of genetic information can occur quite rapidly.
Talk.Origins is committing the fallacy of contrasting "biologists" with "creationists", despite the fact that some biologists are creationists and some creationists are biologists.

Let's test that assumption. Find me a gap in that sequence I posted.

Already did~ in the above ^ and explained the rest of why theres anything there in the first place.

You don't have to depend on edited quotes from books you never read (how do I know you never read them? : )

Because my argument would be stronger? :roll:
I plan on getting them soon though, how did you know? :-?

Just take a look at the evidence.

:-?
?

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.

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

It simply stated that there was a variant among the O.Lamarckiana and he callled it O.Gigas
Monkeys = Big Monkeys, small monkeys
Still monkeys

Monotremes have the mammalian X and Y chromosomes. There are some homologies with the avian chromosome, but they are mammalian.

A mammalian avian chromosome? Or they are avian and are classified as mammalian?

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

Proof?

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

Ouch, I apologize if I appear upset, I'm glad to be here.
I have an intrest in seeing the other side of debates and more knowlege in what I believe
Thats the whole reason I'm here, you don't get to hear debates/another side of the story too often where I'm from.

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.

Then can I see empirical evidence backing there beliefs?
Or better yet send it to Kent Hovind http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000
and make some $

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

Did I not say that?

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

I've seen both sides, and evolutionist often lie and use un-scientific methods to assert proof/fact.
And I've yet to see proof for the big bang or the evolutionary theory.
No, I don't know the details. I look things up and the reason for each side for saying what they do and make choices based on the facts or the stronger argument given.

 

[Vic C.]

Man, you people need to cut down on the post length. Hardly anyone is going to read all that and your point will be missed. Try to summarize or post it pieces, so others can respond to your points one at a time.

Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

When did you show the order of the skeletons? Looked around and couldn't find it.
Don't worry about it though, I've seen a picture of it on talk origins

I presented the skeletons in the order they first appeared, oldest first. If you follow the challenge that Bob failed on, you'll see.

(Barbarian points out that erosion can expose ancient rocks)
Trilobites have been found on the surface, and they are from the Cambrian, much, much older.

Why are trilobites found of the surface?

Erosion and uplift can expose ancient rocks. And does.

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

For example, in north-eastern Oregon, the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer.

"Same layer" is not the same place. Neohipparion is on a different branch of horse evolution, not the one that led to modern horses, and it lived in a different envronment than Pliohippus. You're still trying to fit all fossil horses into one line; they branched out into a number of lines. Your argument is essentially that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead.

This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other.

In fact, they didn't. Neohipparion is from an entirely different lineage. Nevins knows this of course, but he was counting on you not knowing it. Nevins, BTW, is a fake name.

Yet the horse series purports to inform us that the primitive three toed horse evolved into the advanced three toed horse who then evolved into the one toed horse.

No, it just says some of them did. Others lived on long after. You've been suckered by Nevins's little bait-and-switch.

The fossil record as we find more and more does not support the horse evolution series.

Go learn about it. You're easy prey for them, only as long as you remain ignorant of the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, they lied to you about that.

Proof

See above.

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 on several levels.

1. Some horses got bigger. Other lines did not.

2. Modern examples of Equus are remarkably constant in size in the wild; only artifical breeding changes this much.

Whats this prove?

Horses got larger over time, in the line that led to modern horses.

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

Ungulates and whales
Ungulates are hoofed animals, such as cows. The idea that one of these evolved into the present-day whales has long been one of the most difficult pills to swallow in the whole evolutionary pharmacopoeia. A genuine transitional series between these two would cause something of a sensation in creationist circles,

It did. And as usual, the excuses started to fall like rain. However, a rather nice set of transitionals has emerged in the past two decades. We now have many examples of transitionals from a tiny deer-like hoofed mammal, to hoofed animals with many whale-like features, to clearly amphibias animals with functional legs, to clearly aquatic animals with rudimentary legs and so on. If you doubt this, start a new thread on whales and we'll show you in detail.

Hominoids and humans

It is conventionally held that humans and chimps differ only very slightly in their DNA.

Astonishingly small. Three to five percent by most measures. Less than a lot of species show. But there are some other factors that explain the difference, even for organisms so closely related.

There's been a chromosome fusion. One human chromosome looks like two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of old telemeres on the fusion site. And some others. We had a common ancestor several million years ago, even if the raw DNA similarity seems more recent. The "Junk DNA" argument has to do with the defective vitamin C gene, which is damaged in all earlier primates. It merely shows all primates have a common ancestor.

Salamanders and Frogs
(AIG quotemining denial)

Triadobatrachus. Surprise.

Lizards and Snakes
(Attempts by creationists to deny evidence)

A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04413.html

The guys at AIG as usual, got it wrong. Snakes still have the informaton for legs; it is just not expressed. Some modern snakes still have vestigial legs.

Dinosaurs and Birds
Easy way to deal with that one. Tell me if archaeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur, and list the characters that made you decide. Then I'll show you something important.

Dogs and Bears

Not a single fossil belonging to a half dog/half bear creature has yet been found,

Ursavus. Many doglike traits. Many bearlike traits. Want to learn more about it?

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

(declines to try)

Yep. Creationist. Some did evolve quickly and some gradually. But all, as you see, were nicely intermediate. Now, if you're out of dodges, how about showing us where in that line of fossils, there are two adjacent ones that differ by more than many mammals differ today?

How did I know you never read any of the doctored quotes you offered? Because you obviously weren't aware that they had been edited to make them appear to be what they were not.

(admission that macroevolution is the evolution of new species, which has been observed)

Thank you.

Barbarian observes:
Monotremes have the mammalian X and Y chromosomes. There are some homologies with the avian chromosome, but they are mammalian.

A mammalian avian chromosome?

No. Monotremes have X and Y chromosomes, unlike the avian ones.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Wrong again. Genetics, molecular biology, transitional forms of jaws, ears, and other structures, all point to that. Start a new thread,and I'll show you.

 

[Bryce]

"Same layer" is not the same place. Neohipparion is on a different branch of horse evolution, not the one that led to modern horses, and it lived in a different envronment than Pliohippus. You're still trying to fit all fossil horses into one line; they branched out into a number of lines. Your argument is essentially that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead.

:roll: I'm not certain, some places I find 'Same layer' and other places I find 'Same place'
I'll go read up and see if I can't find for sure.

I just find the evolution of the horse a bit silly with all the evidence against it, it's not proven %100 false, but there is certainly a reasonable doubt that even evolutionists admit.

"G. A. Kerkut is an evolutionist who recognizes that the theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination."

In fact, they didn't. Neohipparion is from an entirely different lineage. Nevins knows this of course, but he was counting on you not knowing it. Nevins, BTW, is a fake name.

So they co-existed?

No, it just says some of them did.

He didn't say 'all.'
And why not? What about Eohippus? I was told that was the first horse which was very small and had 3 toes in back and 4 in front. The problem with this is today there is an animal still living called the hyrax. This creature has a skeleton very similar to that of Eohippus yet it has not "evolved" to what the present day horses are. If evolution were true Eohippus, nor anything like it, should be found today. Correct?

"The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record"
http://home.gowyo.com/creation/FtB7.htm

:roll:

Others lived on long after.

Proof?

Go learn about it. You're easy prey for them, only as long as you remain ignorant of the evidence.

Plan on it, but in the meantime, I'm counting on you :roll:

And what evidence?
Just as a creationist would expect, we find no horse with part grazing and part browsing teeth nor do we find any toes partly developed in the fossil record. Rather we find variations among kinds scattered throughout in the strata layers. Just like today you have different types of monkeys in different sizes or even different horses in different sizes, so too was the world of the past.

Horses got larger over time, in the line that led to modern horses.

Proof of a gradual change in the fossil record?
According to Darwin, there should be more than enough evidence by now.

It did. And as usual, the excuses started to fall like rain.

Excuses? How about problems?

There's been a chromosome fusion. One human chromosome looks like two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of old telemeres on the fusion site. And some others. We had a common ancestor several million years ago, even if the raw DNA similarity seems more recent. The "Junk DNA" argument has to do with the defective vitamin C gene, which is damaged in all earlier primates. It merely shows all primates have a common ancestor.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don't know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not. For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as any person you might meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like.

This is explained in figure 1 below:

1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn't tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The "Separate Ancestry" slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The "Common Ancestry" slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1392

Salamanders and Frogs
(AIG quotemining denial)

Triadobatrachus. Surprise.

Triadobatrachus is simply a kind of amphibian with some features similar to those of a frog. While there are similarities in the skulls, they still very different, and the pelvis and hind legs a very different.

Lizards and Snakes
A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04413.html

Creationists have no problem in principle with loss of features through natural processes. Development of leglessness is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new genetic information. Loss of legs could be achieved through degeneration of the DNA information sequences that specify leg development.
Ex: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/599

Not to mention it supports the bible in saying "God cursed the serpent in Genesis to crawl on its belly."
I ask you,
What are the chances of the writers of genesis just got lucky in saying that the serpant used to have legs?
Maybe they dug up a fossil themselves? :

The guys at AIG as usual, got it wrong. Snakes still have the informaton for legs; it is just not expressed. Some modern snakes still have vestigial legs.

So as snakes evolved away from lizards, their legs eventually disappeared save some vesitigal legs. Researchers acknowledged that this snake crawled like the snakes of today. They have not proposed how it used its legs.
In fact evolutionists debate even if it's a truly a transitional

Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organismsâ€â€it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution. -AIG

Dinosaurs and Birds
Easy way to deal with that one. Tell me if archaeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur, and list the characters that made you decide. Then I'll show you something important.

At a first look, I'd say
Bird

Ursavus. Many doglike traits. Many bearlike traits. Want to learn more about it?

Sure =/
Ursavus was a variety of bear with no real evidence of any relationship with Cynodictis and Hesperocyon. There are significant differences. This would require a sudden shift between dog and bear with apparently nothing in between. They would probably claim punctuated equilibrium, but that would literally require a dog giving birth to a bear.

(declines to try)

mm? Maybe you didn't see it, I'll try again.

Directly from .TalkOrigins

"1. The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html

Proof of a gap, from a peer-reviewed site that cites it's sources.

how about showing us where in that line of fossils, there are two adjacent ones that differ by more than many mammals differ today?

Missing links?

How did I know you never read any of the doctored quotes you offered? Because you obviously weren't aware that they had been edited to make them appear to be what they were not.

=/
Can't disprove that, I'll start reading up as soon as I buy my truck so I can make it to a book store =/. Any suggestions?

(admission that macroevolution is the evolution of new species, which has been observed)

Thank you.

Ah, that was my bad. Your words, I just forgot to wrap quote marks around them.

No. Monotremes have X and Y chromosomes, unlike the avian ones.

True enough,
But new research proves that the oddness of the platypus' looks isn't just skin-deep. Platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of avian, reptilian and mammalian lineages that may hold clues for human disease prevention. New genome research proves platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of avian, reptilian and mammalian lineages that may hold clues for human disease prevention.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050708.php [copy/paste]

Nope. Wrong again. Genetics, molecular biology, transitional forms of jaws, ears, and other structures, all point to that. Start a new thread,and I'll show you.

No U!
Aha, sorry had to use that somwhere. But lets' finish this first before we start another, I'll be glad to start it then.
Fair enough? :roll: