[_ Old Earth _] What is the theory of Evolution?

[Evointrinsic]

Hello everybody! This topic is dedicated to understanding of Evolution. I've been on the forums for about a year now, and nearly every single day i've been active on the forum, there has been a misconception about the Theory of Evolution (TE). With this topic I hope to openly discuss the issues you may have with the TE, and present information in an easy to understand, and easy to find, manner I may not be able to answer every single question you may have, I am not an expert, but I am well versed on the subject, so I can do my best.

Before I start throwing paragraphs everywhere, I'll be explaining a few certain things that aren't specifically the TE, but do relate. I'll also be color coding paragraphs so you can help navigate through the topic if there is something you'd like more information on than another.

Science in general: DARK BLUE (first post)
Evolution, specifically: DARK RED (second post)

I had to change this to two posts for the length. heads up!



What is science?

You'd think I wouldn't have to talk about this, but there are people on this forum that just don't seem to fully grasp what Science and Scientists do. All science is, is the attempt to describe what is happening in a certain phenomenon. An example of this would be Gravity. We have a theory of Gravity that is the attempt to explain how gravity works. We do know that Gravity exists, and using our explanation of Gravity we can calculate the strength of gravity using mathematics as well as other scientific studies to determine the strength of gravity a specific object processes. It is unusual for a field of study to only use the field that they are studying in. Take evolution for our next example:

To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, (which is the real trick for most people) but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy, which most people don’t know squat about at all. Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.

This quote given from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

As you can see, there's a lot of information that is integrated and used in a single scientific theory. This applies to all scientific theories, although with a different accumulation of other scientific fields, that help scientists aid in a more unified and accurate description of whatever that specific scientific theory is describing.


Scientists are devious and try to hide their false information by presenting it as true!

This accusation seems to appear more often than not by members of the forum as well as outside it. This is quite fortunately the opposite, however. No matter what scientific field a scientist is working in, they make all information available for other scientists, as well as the public, to analyze and fine-tune. By fine-tune I mean debate. Because Science is merely the act of describing a phenomenon, the more a hypothesis or theory is challenged, such as when another scientists presents information that counters the claims a hypothesis or theory states. There is no such thing as a hypothesis, theory or law that cannot be challenged, and for that matter, hasn't been.


All Science requires evidence!

Correct! To have a scientific theory or hypothesis, it must first accumulate and discover evidence. Because Science is a description of a phenomenon, evidence must parallel the description in order for that description to be at all accurate. This being the case, there cannot be any guesses that act as evidence in the theory or hypothesis to finalize either or. There can, however, be more evidence in one theory than the other. The theory or hypothesis with the most evidence is thus more factual than it's previous description.

This, however, makes a lot of people untrustworthy of Science. Because science is always changing. "how can I believe in one thing one day, and the opposite the next?" Well, scientists all realize that this is the case, there for the theories and hypothesis' themselves are never 100% Final. Regardless if its a hypothesis, theory or law.


What's the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?

A scientific theory is meant to explain a group of related events and observations based on proven hypotheses and confirmed by numerous researchers that work in separate fields.

A scientific law is meant to explain an action or a set of action. Using mathematics, we can explain what can occur in a given situation that this law applies to. The law is generally accepted to be true and universal.


I've heard stories of scientists that tried to cover something up and present it as truth!

Yes, and we all have. Take a look at who is accusing these things though. I dont mean to be insulting, but it usually is a fundamental religious person. The accusations usually are just accusations and don't have any evidence to support the claims. Or, the evidence that is given is falsified. I have looked in many cases of these on both sides of the argument, and the same outcome seems to happen.


Scientists think they know everything!

Absolutely not! We may see TV shows that depict a scientist who can figure out any situation, but that's not the case in real life. Scientists work specifically in one field of study, some times two or three, but there is no scientist that works like the ones depicted on television in that way. It is much more efficient to be a master at one, than know a little about everything. Much more can be discovered if we have numerous "master of ones" that can show their information to other scientists to aid in their studies, or falsify their studies.


There were a bunch of scientists that signed a petition that said they didn't believe in evolution!

This is very true! And this happens in all sorts of theories. It doesn't however disprove the theory wrong. And keep in mind, from what we learned before, the theory may be proven wrong, but it's only describing a phenomenon.

But let's take a look at the petition that these scientists signed...

This is the statement they signed:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. "

Now, this doesn't specifically say that they do not agree that the Theory of Evolution is all that factual, but that they are skeptical of the claims and that more research should be encouraged. In fact, I partially agree to that statement! Over examination is crucial in science, not a bad thing. This is how science works. Not only that, but a claim of skepticism is pretty much worthless without any evidence to back it up. Lastly, the majority of the signatures that are in the list are not biologists (about 80%), some aren't even scientists.

Here is a quote from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM that talks more about the matter

We have all seen the Discovery Institutes list of scientists rejecting evolution. I analyzed the list, and emailed its signees. The truth of the matter is, DI lied repeatedly when constructing the list, and, by their own admission, even IF the numbers are skewed hugely in favor or the creationists, this still leaves .0027% of scientists in the US rejecting evolution.

There is a gentlemen that signed and he is a Park Ranger, which supposedly count's as a scientists. There are people on the list that work for Law schools, mathematics. The majority are computer science engineers.

Now that we know all about how science works, let's move on to the actual subject!

 

[Evointrinsic]

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION


How does evolution work?
Evolution is actually very simple. It's merely adaptation through mutations that lead an organism to survive in it's environment. These mutations are passed down, or started, through successive generations and accumulate over time. Adaptation would happen because of environmental changes. Lets say there was a small population of tiny plant-eating fish in a lake. And over thousands of years this population started to grow. Lets also say that there is only one type of plant in this lake that the fish like to eat. Because of other environmental factors, such as volcanic eruption, or increase in precipitation, the waters salt levels fluctuate mildly. This fluctuation causes patches of the plant to have minor mutations as the years go on that allow the plant to get more nutrition. However, this mutation also has a toxic side effect when ingested. Because of this, only the plants that dont have this mutation are able to be eaten by the fish. There for the newer type of plant, which would be related to the older one, just with a small change, is going to be the only thing eaten by those fish. So eventually the newer version of this plant thrives while the older one diminishes. This would be Natural selection, which is a property that's within Evolution.


If we evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?

Well, Evolution isn't linear. In other words, it's not a one way path, once something starts, it doesn't necessarily end. Evolution is all about divergence. All this means is that something has the ability to produce this but can still produce that as well. Take dogs for example. If you have a black dog and a white dog that breed together, the litter can have puppies that are either Black, White and now also a mottled or patchy/combination of the two. This is now a new trait. The original ones still exist because of dominant and recessive genes. Another way of explaining it, which i'm sure you'll here now and again, is that although Europeans moved over to America, we still have Europeans.


Evolution only means that everything get's bigger, better, stronger and faster!

Not at all. In fact, Evolution often takes away rather than gives. Remember, environmental changes effect mutations as well as other things. If you dont use what you have, you tend to lose it. For example, Cave fish tend to lose there eyes, where as parasites like tape worms tend to lose there guts. Another example would be a gradual change in temperature in an environment. Let's say we have an animal with thick fur in a cold environment. Over thousands of years the environment slowly changes to become a hotter place. If that organism survives, the fur would eventually become shorter, less thick, and so on to adapt to the environment. Thus, it lost it's ancestors thick fur.


The difference between macro and Micro Evolution

NONE! It's the same thing technically. Macro evolution is still evolution, just on a longer time frame. It usually describes the exasperatingly long change from one species to another. Where as Micro evolution describes the small mutations (changes) in an organism. Macro evolution is only the accumulation of those changes. Take time for example. We have a second, a minute and an hour. Let's say a second is a small genetic change, 59 seconds later we have a minute, and we can now see that 60 small genetic changes accumulated to produce a new feature, such as blue eyes. 59 minutes later, so many genetic changes accumulated that the same organism can no longer breed with what it's ancestor was like. All in all, it's still evolution, just describing different time frames.


Evolution is not science because it can't be tested!

this would be incorrect. We can, and have tested it. Let's look back at dogs. they initially arose from wolves that were domesticated. Over thousands of years we began to accumulate all these different mutations that give us different features. Such as:

~Fur texture
~Fur type
~Fur density
~Animals size
~Animals weight
~Changes in the skeletal instructor

and so on. These are all examples of mutation through successive generation, and this is what evolution is.


Evolution only shuffles information, it doesn't create anything new!

This is a common misconception. We have to look deeper into genetics for this topic. Lets look at HIV for this one. Most people assume HIV can affect everyone! Humans have a protein within them called C-C chemokine receptor type 5. It's encoded in the CCR5 Gene. This gene can also have a minor mutation called "delta32". If both parents have the delta32 mutation and have a child, the mutation can cause a genetic deletion of the CCR5 gene. The deletion of this gene means that this person is immune to the HIV-1 infection. Now, although this a deletion of a gene, the Delta32 mutation is new, not everyone has it. The deletion of the CCR5 gene is also a cause of a new mutation.


Evolution is the reason we have life on this planet!

No! Evolution is the phenomenon that occurs when life is on this planet. Abiogenesis is the description of what happens when a planet has no life and then begins to produce life. Technically, the Christian view of Genesis is a theory of Abiogenesis. But evolution does not describe the same thing.


The big bang cannot be true!

If your thinking that "why is this here?" then your on your way to understanding Evolution. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, or even Abiogenesis! it is a completely difference subject. Once again, the theory of evolution describes how organisms adapt and mutate. That is it




That's all I have at the moment, however, there are many more misconceptions to come. Feel free to ask any questions! I hope this has helped!

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friend.
I appreciate your efforts however I would like to clarify.

How does evolution work?

I agree in general, however it is a bit misleading in that it almost infers macro evolution.
Christian creation scientists have no trouble with micro evolution where species adapt to their environments.
For example,
The following example shows how micro evolution works.

In this bear example, we have a text book case of an animal adapting to a change in the environment.
However,this "adaptation" is the direct result of loss of genetic information, which is counterintuitive to Darwinian evolution.

Similar examples of micro evolution are used by evolutionists to infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises. This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record, and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils, however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

Allow me to illustrate the problem with a somewhat quirky, yet effective analogy.

We are told that ten 500 pound bombs have been exploded in a field.
So, the army send in a cleanup team with people and equipment in scale to handle that amount of material.

The personal and equipment are calculated on knowing the size of the bombs at 500 pounds each, and by understanding the exact scientific parameters involved in the amount of shrapnel that will be apparent in the field.

So, the army absolutely expects to find x amount of shrapnel in the field in relation to ten 500 pound bombs.

However when they get to the field they discover there is only materials from two 100 pound bombs.
The evolutionists still believes there were ten 500 pound bombs in spite of the evidence in the field.
Almost the entire field has been searched thoroughly and yet they still believe the ten 500 pound bomb shrapnel will show up.

If we evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?

Well, Evolution isn't linear. In other words, it's not a one way path, once something starts, it doesn't necessarily end. Evolution is all about divergence. All this means is that something has the ability to produce this but can still produce that as well. Take dogs for example. If you have a black dog and a white dog that breed together, the litter can have puppies that are either Black, White and now also a mottled or patchy/combination of the two. This is now a new trait. The original ones still exist because of dominant and recessive genes. Another way of explaining it, which i'm sure you'll here now and again, is that although Europeans moved over to America, we still have Europeans.

Here again we have evolutionists presenting good evidence for micro evolution and inferring macro evolution. Yes, we have many different varieties of dogs and cats, and horses and birds, Europeans and etc, however; Dogs breed and puppies are born, cats breed and kittens are born, birds breed and birds are born Europeans breed and..Well, you see where this leads.

As for the header question; there has never been discovered even a single example of the imagined ape human ancestor. The reason we have apes and humans living concurrently is because we are separate specific life forms. Apes breed and baby apes are born to them, humans breed and baby humans are born. This is a huge issue for evolutionists and they really should not be using micro evolution as examples for inferring macro evolution, it actually makes them look desperate.
Why not use examples of macro evolution to prove macro evolution?
I suspect we both know the answer to that my friend. It’s because none exists.

Evolution only means that everything get's bigger, better, stronger and faster!

Not at all. In fact, Evolution often takes away rather than gives.

OK, once again the examples you use under this header are great micro evolution evidence.
The fact is that mutations involve either duplication of pre existing genes, or reshuffling or outright loss of genetic information.

We never see any new information as evolution scientists Dr. Ian Macreadie points out.
He is the winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, and he affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€

The difference between macro and Micro Evolution

NONE! It's the same thing technically. Macro evolution is still evolution, just on a longer time frame. It usually describes the exasperatingly long change from one species to another.

Hold on my friend. That is not correct. There is a huge difference between micro and macro evolution.
We see many examples of micro evolution all the time, and yet there are no examples of macro evolution. There are no examples in the fossil record unless you have discovered any personally.

Where as Micro evolution describes the small mutations (changes) in an organism. Macro evolution is only the accumulation of those changes. Take time for example. We have a second, a minute and an hour. Let's say a second is a small genetic change, 59 seconds later we have a minute, and we can now see that 60 small genetic changes accumulated to produce a new feature, such as blue eyes. 59 minutes later, so many genetic changes accumulated that the same organism can no longer breed with what it's ancestor was like. All in all, it's still evolution, just describing different time frames.

That is an extremely disingenuous analogy. How can loss of information, or duplication and reshuffling get from say a single cell to human beings? How do you get genetic information for eyes, arms, hair, legs, feet, etc, etc, when we know the observable facts show no such new genetic information has ever been witnessed?
How does a group of bears, some with long fur, some with short where the environment causes let’s say the long haired bears to die off lead to new species?

Evolution is not science because it can't be tested!

this would be incorrect. We can, and have tested it. Let's look back at dogs. they initially arose from wolves that were domesticated. Over thousands of years we began to accumulate all these different mutations that give us different features. Such as:

~Fur texture
~Fur type
~Fur density
~Animals size
~Animals weight
~Changes in the skeletal instructor

and so on. These are all examples of mutation through successive generation, and this is what evolution is.

Again this is just disingenuous. You have provided evidence for the study of present day animals and inferred the scientific legitimacy of macro evolution from an assumed time period of millions or billions of years in the past, which has never been seen.

Evolution only shuffles information, it doesn't create anything new!

This is a common misconception. We have to look deeper into genetics for this topic. Lets look at HIV for this one. Most people assume HIV can affect everyone! Humans have a protein within them called C-C chemokine receptor type 5. It's encoded in the CCR5 Gene. This gene can also have a minor mutation called "delta32". If both parents have the delta32 mutation and have a child, the mutation can cause a genetic deletion of the CCR5 gene. The deletion of this gene means that this person is immune to the HIV-1 infection. Now, although this a deletion of a gene, the Delta32 mutation is new, not everyone has it. The deletion of the CCR5 gene is also a cause of a new mutation.

Yet another example of a loss of genetic information and presented it as “new†additional information.
Again, as your own scientists say...
“all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€

Take care my friend.

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

I agree in general, however it is a bit misleading in that it almost infers macro evolution.
Christian creation scientists have no trouble with micro evolution where species adapt to their environments.

That's a bit misleading. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, has endorsed the "creation science" that claims new species, genera, even families evolve. That's a lot of territory, and certainly not "microevolution."

Similar examples of micro evolution are used by evolutionists to infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises.

The ICR as well as Answers in Genesis agree that speciation is a fact.

This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record,

And now you suddenly don't agree with Gould, who ackowledges instances of observed speciation in the fossil record?

and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

Birds at one time, had teeth. So tell us, is the loss of teeth in birds a loss or gain of genetic information?

There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet

You claim to agree with Stephen Gould, who cites horses, ammonites, and forams.

which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils,

Which we have. Would you like to learn about some of them?

however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

All transitionals are fully formed. They are just transitional between earlier and later organisms. If an organism wasn't fully formed, it couldn't exist. But as you learned earlier for example, transitions between anapsid reptiles and turtles are in the record. Fully formed, and yet transitional.

If we evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?

The apes from which we evolved don't exist. Nor do the apes from which modern apes evolved. You're essentially arguing that if you're alive, your cousin has to be dead.

As for the header question; there has never been discovered even a single example of the imagined ape human ancestor.

So, let's test that belief.

Which of these do you think are human, and which do you think are apes:

The reason we have apes and humans living concurrently is because we are separate specific life forms.

We'll know that, when you show us which of those are from apes and which are from humans. Good luck.

We never see any new information as evolution scientists Dr. Ian Macreadie points out.

The most obvious case of additional information is the milano enzyme. Some time ago, a single mutation occured in a man in Italy that gave him rather complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. His descendants have it, too. One copy of a duplicated gene mutated to form the new enzyme. He has the information from the old gene (at least one copy still exists in these people), and also the new information from the old one.

The birds who lost teeth represent another example of new information. For a molecular biologist, he seems remarkably unaware of these examples.

Hold on my friend. That is not correct. There is a huge difference between micro and macro evolution.

Nope. In fact, in the case of ring species, the extinction of an intermediate population can retroactively change microevolution to macroevolution. Would you like to learn why?

We see many examples of micro evolution all the time, and yet there are no examples of macro evolution. There are no examples in the fossil record unless you have discovered any personally.

Where as Micro evolution describes the small mutations (changes) in an organism. Macro evolution is only the accumulation of those changes. Take time for example. We have a second, a minute and an hour. Let's say a second is a small genetic change, 59 seconds later we have a minute, and we can now see that 60 small genetic changes accumulated to produce a new feature, such as blue eyes. 59 minutes later, so many genetic changes accumulated that the same organism can no longer breed with what it's ancestor was like. All in all, it's still evolution, just describing different time frames.

The ICR, as noted earlier accepts the fact of speciation. They merely redefined "macroevolution" to "evolution so drastic that no human could live long enough to document it."

Evolution is not science because it can't be tested!

Huxley, based on his studies of anatomy, predicted that there must have been dinosaurs with feathers. The test is now complete, and the prediction of the theory confirmed. There are many, many such tests that have been confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Your bear example, BTW, is a laughably wrong interpretation of the way evolution works.

 

[Evointrinsic]

To make this more simple for both of us, let's discuss one issue at a time, and then move on to the others

How does evolution work?

I agree in general, however it is a bit misleading in that it almost infers macro evolution.
Christian creation scientists have no trouble with micro evolution where species adapt to their environments.

... evolutionists infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises. This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record, and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils, however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

So let's stick with Macro evolution to start then, shall we? This seems to be the largest issue with creationists, or simply with people who do not believe in/understand the theory of evolution.

let's look at this part of the first quote:

it is a bit misleading in that it almost infers macro evolution.
Christian creation scientists have no trouble with micro evolution where species adapt to their environments.

I completely realize that Christian creation scientists have no issues with Microevolution. Unfortunately, for them, if you ask any biologist, they will inform them that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it is simply used for descriptive purposes. Both of these terms still only happen in the same way, for the same reasons, there really is no real reason to present these two as different.

Bringing up my example from the second post, Microevolution is to a second as macroevolution is to a hour. They have the same properties, just a longer time frame.

... evolutionists infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises. This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record, and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

Well, the first part was correct at least

As I've stated before, evolution often takes information away, rather than produces a brand new thing. There is no doubt that evolution can lead to ever greater complexity, however, this is not finite. virtually anything that lives in a place where absolutely no light can penetrate mainly have a loss in pigment. the limbs on snakes have disappeared in most species, but there are still remnants from their ancestors. The same can go for Legless lizards (http://ncpictures.com/Shackleford_Banks/2006_09_03%2011%20Legless%20Lizard.jpg). All these are a loss of a mutation rather than a growth of one. I've also stated the HIV virus example, where a gene was "deleted" because of an double dose of one gene.

Lastly:

There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils, however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

I thought someone would bring up this statement :D

I suggest you take a read at this very detailed paper http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... html#intro

I have my doubts you will, so I'll quote their summarized version:

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).


The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

But before we can understand speciation, we need to understand what a species is.

Ernst Mayr (Biologist) gives a very simple explanation of that.
A species is an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so.

A few examples of speciation have been witnessed.

* A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

* A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Another one which i'm sure you've heard about is Darwins Finches.

Darwin's finches. The finches numbered 1–7 are ground finches. They seek their food on the ground or in low shrubs. Those numbered 8–13 are tree finches. They live primarily on insects.

1. Large cactus finch (Geospiza conirostris)
2. Large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris)
3. Medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis)
4. Cactus finch (Geospiza scandens)
5. Sharp-beaked ground finch (Geospiza difficilis)
6. Small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa)
7. Woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida)
8. Vegetarian tree finch (Platyspiza crassirostris)
9. Medium tree finch (Camarhynchus pauper)
10. Large tree finch (Camarhynchus psittacula)
11. Small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus)
12. Warbler finch (Certhidia olivacea)
13. Mangrove finch (Cactospiza heliobates)

(From BSCS, Biological Science: Molecules to Man, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963)

These finches only exist on the Galapagos, and they've all have the same ancestor which originated from Central or South America. Over a period of a few million years, the single species diverged into 13 new ones that still live today. These finches do not show Macroevolution occurring, but that it already has occurred.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barb.

That's a bit misleading. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, has endorsed the "creation science" that claims new species, genera, even families evolve. That's a lot of territory, and certainly not "microevolution."

OK, let’s not play semantics here Barb.
You know full well that when I refer to “speciation†I am talking about the Darwinian variety and not speciation from a common kind of animal.
I have stated several times in various posts that I agree with micro evolution, and I suspect you know this Barb.

Let me make it abundantly clear so we can put an end to this confusion.
There is great debate surrounding the term “speciation†even among evolutionists.
I do not believe the Darwinian, macro-evolutionary concept of speciation that goes from goo to you. Clear enough for you Barb?

The ICR as well as Answers in Genesis agree that speciation is a fact.

OK, here again, you are playing semantics Barb. I don’t know if you actually are not aware of the difference between macro evolutionary speciation and the term used by creation scientists where speciation occurs only between common kinds of animals.
For example; http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Eastern and western meadowlarks, Sturnella magna and S. neglecta respectively, are classified as different species and provide a good example of behavioral isolation. Eastern and western meadowlarks don't typically interbreed in the wild, partly because they don't readily recognize the mating song of the other species and partly because they prefer slightly different habitats. Both species are nearly identical in appearance and are physically capable of interbreeding in the laboratory, and occasionally hybrids between the two species are identified in natural habitats. The potential to reproduce, and the nearly identical appearance and genetic constitution of these two bird species, certainly qualifies them as the same biblical kind, in spite of their classification as different species.

And now you suddenly don't agree with Gould, who ackowledges instances of observed speciation in the fossil record?

I do agree with Gould because he has clearly stated the kind of speciation he recognises is within a kind, as the example I provided above corroborates.

Gould's statement -
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

Now before you get all bent out of shape take a look at what Gould said to explain exactly what he meant by that quote –
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Barb, you can declare quote mining all you want, but this is exactly what he said my friend.
Yes, he believed quite correctly that there is speciation, however as he said it was speciation between common kinds of animals. So Gould and Eldridge came up with an alternative hypothesis, which as we know was punctuated equilibrium.

I believe P.E. has even more serious problems associated with it than Darwin’s hypothesis. Gould had to admit the facts – there are no intermediary stages between major transitions, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

So, micro evolution and macro evolution are indeed two extremely different animals whether you like it or not.

I believe the major confusion with evolutionary minded laymen is that they go to web sites such as Talk Origins and they see repetitive “examples†of “speciation†with fairly detailed analysis and explanation attached to them and they think “hey, Darwinian evolution is fact! Just look at all the scientific corroboration!â€
So, it’s understandable when people buy into it hook, line and stinker.

There is a seriously deceptive propaganda campaign going on and this is evident in many ways, but pretty revealing when people truly believe micro and macro are the same. And when people are deceived into believing “speciation†means Darwinian evolution. When people are led to believe speciation within a kind of animal actually leads up to speciation between different kinds, then that is pretty obvious evidence of purposeful deception.

Bronzesnake wrote; it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

Birds at one time, had teeth. So tell us, is the loss of teeth in birds a loss or gain of genetic information?

What’s the relevance here?

You claim to agree with Stephen Gould, who cites horses, ammonites, and forams.

You keep going on about horse evolution barb when you have been informed that it has been debunked by evolutionists! It isn't being used by any serious scientists anymore Barb.

http://www.icr.org/article/creation-evolution/
Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles. Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a part-way wing and part-way forelimb, or a part-way feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100% birds. Archaeopteryx had claw-like appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same appendages, however. are found in a living bird in South America, the Hoactzin, and he is 100% bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending out along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It flew. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree.

Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "in spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain "unknown."11 Marshall has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."12

As a matter of fact, the ability to fly supposedly evolved four times independently: in the birds, the flying reptiles (pterosaurs) now extinct, the insects, and in mammals (the bat). In none of these cases are there fossil transitional forms showing the ability to fly as evolving. Dr. E. C. Olson, an evolutionary geologist, has said, "As far as flight is concerned there are some very big gaps in the records."13

Concerning insects Olson says, "There is almost nothing to give any information about the history of the origin of flight in insects."

Referring to pterosaurs Olson states " ... there is absolutely no sign of intermediate stages."

After referring to Archaeopteryx as reptile-like Olson says "It shows itself to be a bird."

Finally, with reference to mammals Olson states, "The first evidence of flight in mammals is in fully developed bats of the Eocene epoch." We thus have a most remarkable situation. Four times a marvelous transformation has taken place: terrestrial animals have evolved the power of flight. Each such transformation required millions of years and involved thousands of transitional forms. Yet none of these transitional forms can be found in the fossil record! Could it be that these transitional forms are not found simply because they never existed? Such evidence can be much more easily correlated within a creationist framework than within an evolutionary framework.

The examples given above are not exceptions, but as stated earlier the fossil record displays a systematic absence of transitional types between higher categories. Even with reference to the famous horse "series," du Nouy reports, "But each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared ‘suddenly,’ and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage between these intermediaries.... The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts."14

OK Barb? Your own people admit the horse deal is a dead end, so please stop useing it. It just makes you appear desperate.

Bronzesnake wrote; which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolutionwere fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils,

Which we have. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Oh boy! Here we go again with the hypothetical questions...sigh
If you had any you should just post the info instead of continuously playing this “I have the info...really I do...would you like to see it? Then I get accused of having no fortitude because I haven’t begged you hard enough to show me your imagined proof, by others who believe you actually have some real proof...sigh...

Which of these do you think are human, and which do you think are apes:

Barb, you’re arguing evolution based on homology and that has been debunked for years and no serious evolution scientists would ever dream of using it in any debate or honest discussion.
Hey bowling balls are very similarly shaped to human heads, perhaps we evolved from them...Bronze snake’s eyes begin to roll.

Bronzesnake wrote; We never see any new information as evolution scientists Dr. Ian Macreadie points out.

The most obvious case of additional information is the milano enzyme. Some time ago, a single mutation occured in a man in Italy that gave him rather complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. His descendants have it, too. One copy of a duplicated gene mutated to form the new enzyme. He has the information from the old gene (at least one copy still exists in these people), and also the new information from the old one.

Wait a second Barb.That is so not true.
Here’s the real facts... http://creation.com/a-i-milano-mutationevidence-for-evolution

One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries).

In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.

Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.

Remember how you hammered me for not fully understanding a subject prior to my posting about it?

The birds who lost teeth represent another example of new information. For a molecular biologist, he seems remarkably unaware of these examples.

So you are better qualified to make conclusions than one of your evolutionary scientists huh? So in your opinion a loss of teeth represents a gain of new genetic information? OK....

Your bear example, BTW, is a laughably wrong interpretation of the way evolution works.

Really? Well as long as you say so without any explanations or clarifications I am forced to not believe you!

Take care barb.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

To make this more simple for both of us, let's discuss one issue at a time, and then move on to the others

Hey, if you need to make it simpler so you can understand it then go right ahead.

So let's stick with Macro evolution to start then, shall we? This seems to be the largest issue with creationists, or simply with people who do not believe in/understand the theory of evolution.

people who do not understand the theory of evolution?
Such as yourself.

let's look at this part of the first quote:

it is a bit misleading in that it almost infers macro evolution.
Christian creation scientists have no trouble with micro evolution where species adapt to their environments.

I completely realize that Christian creation scientists have no issues with Microevolution. Unfortunately, for them, if you ask any biologist, they will inform them that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it is simply used for descriptive purposes. Both of these terms still only happen in the same way, for the same reasons, there really is no real reason to present these two as different.

"if you ask any biologist, they will inform them that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution" what!!??? :o

Really? This is not surprising. As a matter of fact it’s extremely typical arrogance on behalf of evolutionists who have no clue that there are any other “real†scientists besides the ones they refer to.
Please allow me to educate you with a list of biologists who disagree with your mistaken belief that “any biologist will inform†me there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr.George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry

Alright, will that do it for you? Or would you like more?
None of these biologists believe micro and macro evolution are the same because they’re not.
Now let’s learn the difference between micro and macro evolution shall we?

mi•cro•ev•o•lu•tion
? ?Show Spelled[mahy-kroh-ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-] Show IPA
–nounBiology.
1.evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

2.minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

mac•ro•ev•o•lu•tion
? ?Show Spelled[mak-roh-ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-] Show IPA
–nounBiology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.( which, as Gould and others have stated, has never been observed, and is the trade secret of paleontology)

OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s continue, shall we?

Bronzesnake wrote; ... evolutionists infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises. This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record, and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

Well, the first part was correct at least
There is no doubt that evolution can lead to ever greater complexity,

Please show me even a single example where new genetic information has been observed.
Don’t bother with the copying or reshuffling examples. In order to get from goo to you, we need to see new genetic information.

Some of the following is used with permission from the book “Foolish Faith†by Judah Etinger.

The theory of evolution says that a hypothetical first living cell (like a bacterium) evolved, over billions of years, into a human being. But such a process meant finding a way to generate enormous amounts of genetic information (DNA), including the instructions for making eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscle, blood, etc. Thus, the total information content of the genetic code (DNA) must have continually increased with the emergence of new genes (or instructions).

What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra genetic instructions required to progressively transform a one-celled creature into a human being? Evolutionists believe it was something called genetic mutations.

The English language can be used as an analogy to illustrate what a genetic mutation is: The message “The enemy is now attacking†could mistakenly be copied as “The enemy is not attacking.†Naturally, this mistake would probably result in harmful consequences. Indeed, it is unlikely that a random mistake might actually improve the meaning of the message; very likely the meaning would be damaged.

In the same way, mutations are generally random copying mistakes in the reproduction of the genetic code (DNA), and as such, tend to be harmful. The code in DNA is simply a complex set of instructions that tells a creature’s body how to reproduce itself (much the same as a set of instructions that tells a person how to reproduce a car or spaceship). Random copying mistakes (mutations), then, are obviously unlikely to improve these instructions; rather they are much more likely to damage or destroy them, as the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges. That is why many mutations cause disease and death.

In fact, according to one university biology textbook, the odds that a mutation (random copying mistake) might actually improve the instructions contained in the genetic code are so low that “a random change is not likely to improve the genome (genetic code) any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.â€But this isn’t surprising, since mutations are random mistakes.

However, evolutionists generally believe that occasionally a “good†mutation will occur, one which will improve the genetic code, despite the overwhelming odds as described above. It is thought that such “good†copying mistakes would scramble the instructions in the code in such a way as to improve it, thus generating the new information required to tell the body how to build a new physical feature. Such “good†mutations,the Encyclopedia Britannica says, would “serve as the raw material of evolution.â€

Evolutionists believe that over the last 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of trillions of these hypothetical “good†copying mistakes have continuously improved the genetic code, adding enough new information to transform a bacterium into a human being.

This is the equivalent of saying that random copying mistakes when re-typing the instructions to produce an automobile could eventually result in such an improved set of instructions, that instead of producing an automobile, the new and improved instructions would produce a working spaceship!

To summarize: evolutionists generally believe that new DNA information (genes) comes from “good†accidental copying mistakes, and these types of copying errors are what have generated the encyclopedic amounts of information necessary to transform the first self-reproducing organism billions of years ago into every living thing in the world today. In conjunction with a process called “natural selection,†this makes up the “neo-Darwinian theory of evolution,†today the most widely believed explanation among evolutionists for life’s origins

Has a "good" mutation ever really been observed?
That is, has a mutation been observed which has been seen to improve the genetic code by adding meningful information (new genes, or “instructionsâ€) to build (at least part of ) a new physical feature?

To Continue in Next Post...

 

[Bronzesnake]

Continued From Last Post...

It is first necessary to briefly define what is meant by the term “information†in this context.

The DNA code has already been defined as a set of instructions, analogous to an English message. The sequence of “letters†(or bases) in the code is not random or repetitive, but instead, like the letters in a written message. In other words, the code has meaning. For instance, a random sequence of English letters such as “nkntweioeimytnhatcesga†means nothing, but when the same letters are arranged “the enemy is now attacking,†it becomes a meaningful message, containing meaningful information.

It is the specific arrangement of letters that makes the message meaningful to someone who understands the language, and this meaningful arrangement is, in itself, “information.†In the same way, it is the specific arrangement of “letters†(or bases) in the DNA code that makes the code meaningful to the body, which understands the DNA (genetic) language. This meaningful arrangement of “letters†in the DNA code is what makes up the information that tells the body how to produce a particular physical feature or characteristic, such as an eyeball or hair color.

Today, there is a small handful of cases in which a genetic mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. These types of mutations are referred to as “beneficial mutations.†But even these beneficial mutations do not improve the code in DNA: rather than adding any meaningful information, they destroy it. For example, Darwin pointed to a case in which a genetic mutation caused flying beetles on a small desert island to lose their wings (the “wing-making†information in the DNA was lost or scrambled in some way). However, due to this loss, the beetles had a better chance of survival because they were less likely to be blown into the sea. Thus, the mutation was “beneficial†to the beetle population because it helped them to survive better in their environment.
This shows how even a beneficial mutation can be damaging to the DNA code; in this case the mutation involved a loss or corruption of the information (or genes) for making wings.

Textbooks regularly use examples of beneficial mutations as evidence for evolution. But the problem with using beneficial mutations to support evolution is that they are exactly the opposite of what is required, that is, they involve a loss or corruption of existing information. For instance, losing the ability to fly has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.

To produce a beetle from a simple cell, it is obvious that an increase of new genetic information is necessary to create the eyes, the wings, etc. Thus, to support evolution, the preceding beetle
example would have to be reversed. The DNA code would have to be improved rather than damaged — new meaningful information (genes) would have to be produced. This means that a new physical feature would have to arise that was never before present — beetles normally born without wings would subsequently have to be born with them. But no such example exists.

Some of the most common examples given as proof of beneficial mutations are those that cause pesticide and antibiotic resistance in rodents and bacteria. For instance, the book Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, published by the National Academy of Sciences, states, “Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics . . . [and] similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin . . . [and] many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them.â€
Examples such as these are almost always used by textbooks to show “evolution happening.†But like the wingless beetles, they are still the result of a loss of DNA information, or sometimes a transfer of existing information — not the result of new information.
In fact, one recent discovery proved that in many cases bacteria already had the genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, even before those antibiotics were invented!

Reuters News Service reported that one of the ways in which bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is by swapping genes among species. The mechanism by which they do this has been thought by many to have “evolved†in response to antibiotics. However, researchers have looked at preserved samples of cholera bacteria dating back to 1888. They found that the same gene-swapping mechanisms were already there — well before antibiotics were discovered or used by people!

The limbs on snakes have disappeared in most species, but there are still remnants from their ancestors.

I challenge that assertion. Please show me any snake fossil which has limbs.

All these are a loss of a mutation rather than a growth of one.

Don't you mean to say, a mutation which caused a loss of genetic information as opposed to new genetic information being added?

I've also stated the HIV virus example, where a gene was "deleted" because of an double dose of one gene.

This does not help Darwinian evolution. Creation scientists predict this is exactly what we expect to find and it lines up with special creation perfectly whereas Darwinian evolution requires the addition of new genetic information which as your own scientists admit, has never been seen.

Lastly:

Bronzesnake wrote; There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils, however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

There are many transitional fossils.

Ya, I know this game. You pick out a fossil such as say, Lucy and just proclaim it to be a transitional. That is not Darwinian macro evolution my friend, and if you believe it is then you are sadly misinformed.
Darwinian evolution tells us that all life we know today has evolved from a first simple single celled organism billions or millions of years ago through a graduated series of transitions.

So what we need to see is a whole bunch of series of graduated transitional fossils, however, there are none to be found. We do not see any fossils showing a half way between fin and limb for example, and if evolution is real we should expect to find the earth filled with such examples and yet there are none. Evolutionists have moved the goal post out of necessity because of this serious lack of evidence.

The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.

The way evolutionists have done?

However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found.

What?!! you're telling us evidence for evolution is not required?? That's highly convenient isn't it?
Hey, we can't show you any fossil proof so you'll just have to take our words for it! :gah

What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

See what I mean? The parameters have been moved. The hypothesis of Darwinian evolution absolutely demands more than just a single example of a fossil. You need series of graduated transitionals! Darwin himself made this abundantly clear, but over the years evolutionists have had to seriously revise the meaning of what macro evolution truly is because of a complete lack of evidence.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Please show me photos and not illustrations or plastic recreations of these "species and genera and other sequences between higher taxa" Or is it simply assumed?

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

Please provide examples. Or does empty assertion add up to proof in your opinion?

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

Micro evolution.

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

Again, micro evolution.
I won’t bother with the rest because they are all micro evolution examples which is why Gould made the following statements...
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
and...
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
This is from one of the most highly respected evolution scientists in the world at the time he was alive!
Why doesn't this information ever sink in?

2. Large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris)
3. Medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis)
4. Cactus finch (Geospiza scandens)
5. Sharp-beaked ground finch (Geospiza difficilis)
6. Small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa)
7. Woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida)
8. Vegetarian tree finch (Platyspiza crassirostris)
9. Medium tree finch (Camarhynchus pauper)
10. Large tree finch (Camarhynchus psittacula)
11. Small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus)
12. Warbler finch (Certhidia olivacea)
13. Mangrove finch (Cactospiza heliobates)

(From BSCS, Biological Science: Molecules to Man, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963)


These finches only exist on the Galapagos, and they've all have the same ancestor which originated from Central or South America. Over a period of a few million years, the single species diverged into 13 new ones that still live today. These finches do not show Macroevolution occurring, but that it already has occurred.

This is not macro evolution!
You obviously just do not comprehend the distinction between micro and macro evolution my friend. These are all birds, you know that right?

Darwinian evolution states that life started out magically, then from a so called simple single cell, mutations occurred which progressively added new genetic information to the so called first simple single celled life forms, and eventually over millions or billions of years, and with no intelligent help, these cells gained new attributes through an addition of new genetic information, which has never been observed, but hey that never stopped a good old fashioned evolutionists! And things progressed to the point where we have all the various life forms we see today.

It sounds pretty impressive, except there is not real evidence that it ever happened. Just the assertions of some evolutionists, although some of the top evolution scientists disagree with Darwinian evolution as well, due to the complete lack of any series of graduated transitional fossils.

Take care.

Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

To make this more simple for both of us, let's discuss one issue at a time, and then move on to the others

Hey, if you need to make it simpler so you can understand it then go right ahead.

Uh, no... i'm saying lets do one topic at a time because to discuss every single thing is ridiculously lengthy, not ridiculously complicated. As you seem to not realize, every post in here has been ridiculously long. We dont need to discuss 10 topics at the same time, if only one topic requires a two posts in a row to argue about. By talking about 1 topic we can have some sort of order. Evolution is a massive scientific topic to discuss. It would be like saying "ok let's debate about the bible" and then I post 20 posts in a row on all the issues I have with it instead of just going one at a time. So i suggest you calm down and stop directly insulting people.

Please allow me to educate you with a list of biologists who disagree with your mistaken belief that “any biologist will inform†me there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.

by any biologist, i don't mean one who integrates biblical scripture into their scientific study.

Alright, will that do it for you? Or would you like more?
None of these biologists believe micro and macro evolution are the same because they’re not.

Bronzesnake, a hypothesis or theory in science will always have a small or large portion of scientists that do not agree with them. The general theory of relativity, you know, the one that explains gravity, is not 100% agreed upon!


This however does not justify a universal scientific understanding of the theory, even when a scientist is working in that field of study.

Robinson, B. A. 1995. on Public beliefs about evolution and creation says:

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Just because 98%-99% of other scientists disagree with these creationist scientists claims, does that automatically make them correct? no, so dont bother bringing population into the equation. in 2006 there was an estimated 5.8 million science and engineering researchers in the world. if we use the other "percentage of scientists that believe in Darwinian evolution", your drastically outweighed. But that isn't how things work in the scientific world. If you present credible evidence, the theory is altered. After extensive testing of course. If the entirety of the theory of evolution were to turn out to be incorrect, such as proving that macroevolution does not exist, the news would fly out everywhere from every scientific magazine. There is no sense keeping an incorrect theory around when it can be altered to be more accurate.

as for the definition of macroevolution, Ive clearly stated that I know what it means, and speciation is macroevolution.

SourceTheobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Bronzesnake wrote; ... evolutionists infer speciation over long periods by an accumulation of such small scale changes that lead to big scale changes slowly to the point where a new species arises. This is not an honest or accurate analysis of what we see exclusively in the fossil record, and it's especially destructive in this case where the adaptation is caused by a loss of genetic information.

I've already addressed this issue.

Please show me even a single example where new genetic information has been observed.

* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

These are all simple, yet new, traits these organisms have developed. this is new genetic information as well, not a mere shuffling.

For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.
Sourcehttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

But here is a better explanation:

The evolution of life is analogous to the evolution of language. For example, there are several languages based on the Roman alphabet of only 26 letters. Yet by arranging these in different orders, we’ve added several hundred thousand words to English since the 5th century, and many of them were completely new. The principle is the same in genetics. There are millions of named and classified species of life, all of them based on a variable arrangement of only four chemical components.

For another example, we know that Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all evolved from Latin, a vernacular which is now extinct. Each of these newer tongues emerged via a slow accumulation of their own unique slang lingo –thus diverging into new dialects, and eventually distinct forms of gibberish such that the new Romans could no longer communicate with either Parisians or Spaniards.

Similarly, if we took an original Latin speaking population and divided them sequestered in complete isolation over several centuries, they might still be able to understand each other, or their jargon may have become unintelligible to foreigners. But they won’t start speaking Italian or Rumanian because identical vocabularies aren’t going to occur twice.

It works the same way in biology. Mutations are degrees of variation which are usually quite subtle but cumulative, normally harmless, and occasionally advantageous. Any change in information is different information, not already present, and therefore can only be considered “newâ€. But of the many types of mutations known to occur, there are additions and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away.

The theory of evolution says that a hypothetical first living cell (like a bacterium) evolved, over billions of years, into a human being. But such a process meant finding a way to generate enormous amounts of genetic information (DNA), including the instructions for making eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscle, blood, etc. Thus, the total information content of the genetic code (DNA) must have continually increased with the emergence of new genes (or instructions).

I suggest you take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s as well as the others in that playlist. They will tell how, in tremendous detail, how this is possible.

Evolutionists believe that over the last 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of trillions of these hypothetical “good†copying mistakes have continuously improved the genetic code, adding enough new information to transform a bacterium into a human being.

No actually, they don't. Hence, Junk DNA. which the vast majority of human genetics are made up of.

Textbooks regularly use examples of beneficial mutations as evidence for evolution. But the problem with using beneficial mutations to support evolution is that they are exactly the opposite of what is required, that is, they involve a loss or corruption of existing information. For instance, losing the ability to fly has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about.

Also incorrect. Firstly, as I've stated numerous times before, Evolution often takes away. Any biologist (other than your list of a few hundred) will tell you this. In fact, it apears that your biologists will also bring up the loss of something. so i guess its a unanimous conclusion then. :D

Secondly, Evolution is the explanation of how genetic change works, it doesn't need to specify on what comes first, however, it does present an explanation for that as well. But that is a very poor example you've given. Other than the "which is what evolution is supposed to be about", that example actually helps prove evolution.

Your next paragraph is just stating the exact same argument over again, but i've already shown you how loss happens in evolution. But your accusations are assuming that we are saying that Loss either always happens or never happens. but that isn't the case (as I've said before).

Your next paragraph after that is also stating the exact same argument...

[

This is a perfect example of misinterpretation. I never said there are still snakes with limbs, I said there are still snakes with remnants of limbs from their ancestors.

This is a photo of a ball python and it's vestigial limbs. Here is a list of the species of snakes that show pelvic structures in their skeleton:

* Boas and Pythons: a long ilium, attached to the lower branch of the first bifurcate transverse process of the lumbar vertebrae, bearing three short bones, the longest of which, regarded as the femur, terminates in a claw-like spur which, in males at least, usually appears externally on each side of the cloaca.
* Leptotyphlopidae: ilium, pubis, and ischium, and rudimentary femur, the ischium forming a ventral symphysis.
* Aniliidae
* Typhlopidae: a single bone on each side.

Ask any herpetologist and you will get the same answer, regardless of their religious belief.

 

[Evointrinsic]

All these are a loss of a mutation rather than a growth of one.

Don't you mean to say, a mutation which caused a loss of genetic information as opposed to new genetic information being added?

uh... yeah... that's what I said. If you haven't noticed this was to show a loss of information. Those examples are going against your claims that "loss cannot happen in evolution"

I've also stated the HIV virus example, where a gene was "deleted" because of an double dose of one gene.

This does not help Darwinian evolution. Creation scientists predict this is exactly what we expect to find and it lines up with special creation perfectly whereas Darwinian evolution requires the addition of new genetic information which as your own scientists admit, has never been seen.

... how many times do I have to say that evolution often takes away rather than gives! is this such a difficult concept. and ask ANY of "our own scientists" about this, i dare you. I dare you to ask one of "Our own scientists" if new genetic information is added. Because i can garentee you they will have shelves full of examples. I have already given you plenty. you are simply in denial at this point.

Bronzesnake wrote; There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet which is devastating to macro evolution due to the fact that if macro evolution were fact, the body of fossils throughout the planet would absolutely have to represent a huge majority of series of graduated transitional fossils, however all we ever find are fully formed non transitional animals.

Yes I realize you believe this, unfortunately for you, the examples i have given do in fact explain this. You simply have a mental block when it comes to the presentation of evidence. simply stating this over again does not disqualify the evidence i have given you, please produce some that goes against mine. You can copy and paste your original argument all you want but it's not helping your argument.

It's like me saying "2+2=5" and you say "uh no... if you add 1 and 1 together you get two, if you do that again you get 4" and then i say "no! that cannot be right, see, look at my first argument."

[quote"Bronzesnake"]So what we need to see is a whole bunch of series of graduated transitional fossils, however, there are none to be found. We do not see any fossils showing a half way between fin and limb for example, and if evolution is real we should expect to find the earth filled with such examples and yet there are none. Evolutionists have moved the goal post out of necessity because of this serious lack of evidence.[/quote]

actually no, this is incorrect. read this...

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Ok, now read it 10 times over. This is how transitional fossils work.

The way evolutionists have done?

Yes, this is how it works... this is how paleontologists work. this is how taxonomy works. if you cannot understand this than you cannot understand evolution as well as the studies that make up the theory of evolution.

What?!! you're telling us evidence for evolution is not required?? That's highly convenient isn't it?
Hey, we can't show you any fossil proof so you'll just have to take our words for it!

Once again, your description of transitional fossils is not how this works. Currently you are just in a state of "no matter what evidence you show me i've already considered it false". There for, why are you bothering to debate at all? all of your accusations have already been proven to be incorrect, yet you simply shove the information that proves it aside. this would be denial, my friend.

The hypothesis of Darwinian evolution absolutely demands more than just a single example of a fossil.

I completely agree.

You see this picture? Let's just take the top skull. a discovery of this in itself does not show a transition between another organism because we haven't discovered the other related fossils yet. Now, let's say we have discovered the other fossils and we now can look at the entire list. We have have a visual perspective of a transition occuring. We do not need the 10,000 generations in between to show that they are related. This is NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS, nor is it how Darwin says how it will work. In fact he said the precise opposite.

Please show me photos and not illustrations or plastic recreations of these "species and genera and other sequences between higher taxa" Or is it simply assumed?

unfortunately camera's have only existed for 190 years. Darwins theory was published even less than that. However, we do have transition as you've described all around us. All dog breeds being the transition you are speaking of.

Please provide examples [of a transition to humans]. Or does empty assertion add up to proof in your opinion?

There you go. as your so keen on giving lists about who believes this:

36,700 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement by may 2003 have signed.

the agreement goes as follows "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

Micro evolution.

I think you are misinterpreting what this quote is supposed to argue about? This quote was from an argument of transition, not macroevolution or microevolution. So you agree with me that this is a transition then?

The next statement you've given is identical.

This is not macro evolution!
You obviously just do not comprehend the distinction between micro and macro evolution my friend. These are all birds, you know that right?

Actually it is. you see, speciation is within macroevolution.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evointrinsic.

Look, I apologise if I came across rude.
I do respect your beliefs and I'll try harder to show that I do respect you.
No more smart aleck or rude remarks from me, you have my word.

As for micro and macro. I still assert there is a huge difference and all examples I have ever seen are examples within a kind.
As for the photos of skulls, they really don't prove anything. Homology isn't considered a reliable method any longer by either side.

Take care Evointrinsic.

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

Thank you for the apologies, however, i still would like to continue on the issues you've presented.

The reason why you only see examples within a kind is because your definition of macro evolution only applies to separate Families vs separate Species. It does, however apply to both.

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Subspecies

This is a list of the types biological classifications. If we take a step even before subspecies we see small genetic changes within the same species, which is what microevolution describes. After accumulation of these small changes an organism isn't capable of breeding with it's original ancestor. Simple small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population over generations. As you said, you, and your creationist scientists, have no issues with this. As the generations continue, and the mutations continue, and the organism is unable to breed with it's ancestor/relatives (as in species), it is classified as a new species. You've also agreed believing in this as well. and although this is still quite a small difference, it is still considered a form of macroevolution. As the mutations continue to accumulate, the organism may be able to escape from the genus itself.

In the smaller side of macroevolution, we have witnessed it, and that is speciation. On the grander scale, modern science hasn't existed in the time required to visually collect data. And that's where fossils come in.

Lets look at the transition between reptilians to mammals:

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).

Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:

"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)

Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times since he wrote these words. However, Gish's statements nicely delineate the morphological conundrum at hand. Let's review the required evolutionary conclusion. During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary (see Figure 1.4.1).

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.


Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates—mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals. The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

More information can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... ntal_unity