| highwaystar101 said: OK, I don't want to sound like a d!ckhead. But I'#m going to bump the thread because I never got my 7 proofs of ID or creationism. |
@ HS
As to what you wrote, I begin with:
Accordingly to the bulk of things that G. G. Simpson said in the Darwin Centenary Symposium which was held in 1959:
They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level, most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare. Sequences of genera immediately successive or nearly so at that level (not necessarily from one genus to the next, are more common and maybe longer than known sequences of species. But the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species; the gaps involved are generally larger, that is, when a new genus appears in the record it is usually well separated morphologically from the most nearly similar other known genera. This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known order, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
Most of your proof is Homology and Morphology:
A Homologous- Similar in structure and evolutionary origin.
B Morphology- Branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of an organism apart from function.
1 The problem with using bone fossils, as a certain indicator of the origin of a species is that structure cannot tell us all. The Tasmanian Wolves (thylacine) and the wolf or The marsupial dog and the placenta dog have similar forms and function but do not share ancestry (or close ancestry) the forms were arrived at 2 different ways, they Converged on similar forms. We know the nature of the beast because they were once alive (now extinct) but their “soft tissue” is known. But in skeleton form they are hard to tell apart and were even “ similar in gross appearance and in skeletal structure, teeth, skull, ect, so similar in fact that only a skilled zoologist could distinguish them.” (I quote M. Denton an Atheist and an Aussie).
2 It does not take in account the genetic frequencies of the animal. If all dogs were extinct and all we had were fossilized bones, would we really be able to tell that every breed was a part of the same species?
3 Results of Vertebrate Embryology show that different parts of developing vertebrate fetus give rise to different organs and grow legs and arms.
4 DNA research shows that categorizing species in accordance by Genes can yield different results depending on which genes you track. For instance a gene in a fruit fly mouse and in
Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals-
M. Denton goes into the argument of Fish to Lung Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal. He compares the hearts of the organism s and finds no clear evolutionary path. The eggs of the species and says that:
“ In some ways, mammalian eggs are closer in their initial pattern of development to those of a frog than to any reptile.”
His book is full of quotes but as this is a very long writing, I suggest that you checkout the book at the library and then refute him, as I must with some of your longer articles.
Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).
De Beer an embryologist wrote a book called Homology, An Unresolved Problem. (Oxford press) The over arching theme of the book is that the similar body plans of Vertebrates (their Homology) does not mean that the developmental mechanisms with in forming embryos a re the same. He says:
“It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”
He even documented the eye lens formation in two types of frog embryos and found that cutting out: “the optic cup of the Rana fusca led to a lack of lens development, but in the closely related edible frog, Rana Esculents, the optic cup can be cut out from the embryo, and the lens develops all the same.”
Rensch, B. in his book, Evolution above the Species, extensively talks about reptiles with similar body plans as mammals but lack the any change in cranial capacity necessary to show itself a transitory form of the earliest mammals found saying:
“…The earliest mammal for which there is reasonable evidence, Triconodon of the Upper Jurrassic period was apparently already at or near the level of living “primitive” mammals such as the insectivores or the Virginia opossum. It was certainly larger brained than its reptilian ancestors of comparable body size.”
Evidence of human evolution from primates:
All you gave me were a successive series of skulls. Without DNA evidence, it is easy to assume things in accordance to form. For example, (barring clear racism) people of different colors are often picked-up due to their description, which is similar to a degree, to the criminal. There are people in jail because they were the only other black man or Iranian on the street that night or because they matched a description. This is why many times DNA has the ability to free men of crimes or make then “more” guiltier.
Is the DNA more compatible with apes or human beings? A series of skulls does not show common descent nor does it discredit it. Watching the TV show Bones, Angela one of the Scientist, is able to look at a skull and immediately tell by characteristics whether it is a male or female, whether it is black, white, Asian, etc. … This is true to life science being used everyday. Even more specifically, we can even break down the groups mentioned above and say what the geographical decent of the human is. Like OK, he is white but what kind of white guy? He is Black but what region of Africa did his ancestors come from?
If they are humans, then what are we really saying? Are we going to make the mistake of Hitler (not with the death) and start thinking that one race is less evolved than the next? You can tell by DNA the “RACE” (although we all are the human race) of a man. If all life arose from Africa, are we going to say that Europeans are superior to Africans because they manifest later gene expressions of the human race?
Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals:
As I had said before the problem comes when just tell me something. The web site tells a story but it does not do a great job at telling me how much of what is written is conjecture and how much is fact. Even the language of the author give some clue that not all of the things mentioned are confirmable but is the best guess in accordance to the evidence presented to them.
Also, there are no links to the authors or the different theory holders. The article that you gave me has to be the work of a conglomerate of biological theorizes and truths. So, it would be extremely hard to track down all of the various parts of the story. But I promise to continue to do so (I find it interesting).
Atheist, Microbiologist and Medical Doctor, Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in Chapter 8 of his book called The Fossil Record, specifically on page 174, say that the fossil record for Whales to land mammals is far from conclusive.
The problem is the story like the one the website you gave me is far too direct for Natural Selection and Random Mutation. On page 175 of the book is a hypothetical linage of the whale from a land animal. He says on the previous page:
“Even from the hypothetical primitive whales to bridge, the not inconsiderable gaps which separate the modern filter feeders and the toothed whales. Moreover, it is impossible to accept that such a hypothetical sequences of species, which led directly from the unspecialized terrestrial ancestral form, gave rise to no collateral branches. Such an assumption would be purely ad hoc, and influence in evolution which would be quite foreign to the spirit of Darwinian theory and defeat its major purpose of attempting to provide a natural explanation for evolution.”
Later he says:
“…all the modifications necessary to convert a land mammal into a whale- forelimb modifications, the evolution of tail flukes, the stream lining, reduction of hind limbs, modifications of skull to bring nostrils to the top of head, modification of trachea, modifications of behavior pattern, specialized nipples so that the young could feed underwater (a complete list would be enormous)- one is inclined to think in terms of possibility hundreds, even thousands, of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales.”
In the article itself, it is said that the details are “fuzzy” and then they say that we know because we have a profusion of intermediate forms uncovered in the last decade. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Basilosaurus- 4 animal forms/fossils do not make a profusion.
The first is a candidate for eventual whalehood, the Pakicetus, because of it skull show that it has intermediate whale/land animal hearing? Does that truly show the path to whalehood or convergence? Maybe the animal in question liked to be in water like our friend the Hippo.
Ambulocetus, judging by the article itself the different fossils are in no way in the same trek to whalehood. The Ambulocetus has hooves and fingers but the article does not say that the Pakicetus has that it only talks about the animal’s skull. If it had hooves, they should have mentioned it. Also what about its skull? Does the skull show signs of the directional hearing needed for this animal to be a transitional ancestor of the Pakicetus? No.
Of the Rhodocetus the article says, “Rhodocetus shows evidence of an increasingly marine lifestyle. Its neck vertebrae are shorter, giving it a less flexible, more stable neck -- an adaptation for swimming also seen in other aquatic animals such as sea cows, and in an extreme form in modern whales. The ear region of its skull is more specialized for underwater hearing. And its legs are disengaged from its pelvis, symbolizing the severance of the connection to land locomotion.” So accentually, the article is saying that this animal is already quiet at home in the water. BUT did it say that the animal had Vestigial hooves like the Ambulocetus? No.
So by the time we get to the Basilosaurus we have not 3 huge gaps but 3 animals that have nothing to do with one another but have whale like qualities in their bones.
The article confirms my rambling by saying the following:
“None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree.”
If these animals are side branches then they are not predecessors of the whale. So where is this profusion of intermediate forms?
Its like saying, “I have a profusion of evidence that this men killed Laura Palmer.”
Then I go on to explain:
1st Police officer Mark Ferrman found a bloody glove in the bushes.
2nd 9/11.
3rd A Muslim store clerk was robbed at gunpoint. (From the news recently)
4th There is violence against women in the world.
6th Men kill.
7th Women die everyday.
8th And Lara Palmer was found dead.
“Must I paint a picture Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this man is a killer (whale).”
All of the things that I mention above are like the evidence the article present each thing is only vaguely related by an aquatic resemblance. They are in no way related to one another, just random points on a map that do not show us how we got to land animal to the whale. Random points on the map that look like they assume must be. FUZZY.
Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species.
The article that you gave me was ambiguous about the evolution of snakes. One finding was that it was a predecessor of the modern snake and another was that it was an advanced snake. So, the evidence presented is in conflict with on another. If there were, a tiebreaker or some reason stated in the article as to why the 1st group was unable to reach the same conclusion as the following group the findings would have more weight.
The first group who thought that the fossil was a missing link of snake’s evolution, findings were in stark conflict to previous thoughts on the evolution of snakes as well.
The only thing that may or may not be credible in this article is the reference to the organ on modern day boa- but since neither the longer held theory of snake evolution, or the new theory that flew in the face of that fact, or the newest theory that believed the fossil to be a progenitor of the modern snake are in agreement it is hard for me to say that the piece of cartilage and bone that it uses to fight and during mating, is a residual visage of a leg.
Now since the conflictions are so great it leads me to believe that the story is not 100 percent fleshed-out, meaning it is not FACT. If it were fact, the place of the new fossil would not be so easily displaceable.
The conjoining of the 2 theories to suggest that the snake is capable of evolving and “de-evolving” if you will is also just an assumption. Nor is there anything in the theories to suggest that the Serpent is not related to the snake in anyway but rather has a similar design as the legless creature.
But a word of advice to you, if you argue with a Creationist or ID person who believes in the Hebrew God, you had better not bring up the evolution of snakes, seeing as how ancient “mythology” had already speculated that theory long before the word “scientist” was coined.
The full evolution of paramecium (which co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)
On Paramecium your websites, findings were submitted online 12/1/2006 later developments have different results 12/11/2008 please click link cast a dubious light on the miraculous findings of the group. Showing that the ideas of the group are in no way widely accepted by the scientific community and at best, the previous results are downplayed.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.shtml
Genetic Diversity in the Paramecium aurelia Species Complex
Francesco Catania*, François Wurmser ,, Alexey A. Potekhin, Ewa Przybo|| and Michael Lynch*
* Department of Biology, Indiana University
Laboratory Evolution, Genomes and Speciation; CNRS-UPR9034, Gif sur Yvette Cedex, France
Universitè Paris-Sud 11, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Laboratory of Protozoan Karyology, Faculty of Biology and Soil Science, St Petersburg State University; Oranienbaumskoye sh., 2, Stary Peterhof, 198504 Saint Petersburg, Russia
|| Department of Experimental Zoology, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
E-mail: fcatania@indiana.edu .
Accepted for publication November 11, 2008.
Current understanding of the population genetics of free-living unicellular eukaryotes is limited, and the amount of genetic variability in these organisms is still a matter of debate. We characterized—reproductively and genetically—worldwide samples of multiple Paramecium species belonging to a cryptic species complex, Paramecium aurelia, whose species have been shown to be reproductively isolated. We found that levels of genetic diversity both in the nucleus and in the mitochondrion are substantial within groups of reproductively compatible P. aurelia strains but drop considerably when strains are partitioned according to their phylogenetic groupings. Our study reveals the existence of discrepancies between the mating behavior of a number of P. aurelia strains and their multilocus genetic profile, a controversial finding that has major consequences for both the current methods of species assignment and the species problem in the P. aurelia complex.
Key Words: Paramecium • genetic diversity • effective population size • speciation • cryptic species • mating group switching
Laura Katz, Associate Editor
Michael Behe add on page 40 of his book Darwin’s Black Box:
“In Biochemistry, a mutation is a change in the DNA. To be inherited the change must occur in the DNA of a reproductive cell. The simplest mutation occurs in when a single nucleotide (nucleotides the building blocks of DNA) in a creature’s DNA is switched to a different nucleotide. Alternatively, a single nucleotide can be added or left out when the DNA is copied during cell division. Sometimes, though, a whole region of DNA- thousands or millions of nucleotides- is accidentally deleted or duplicated. That counts as a single mutation, too, because it happens at one time, as a single event. Generally, a single mutation can, at best, make only a small change in a creature- even if the change impresses us as a big one. For example, there is a well known mutation called antennapedia that scientist can produce in a laboratory fruit fly: the poor mutant creature has legs growing out of its head instead of antennas. Although that strikes us as a big change, it really isn’t. The legs on the head are typical fruit fly legs, only in a different location.
An analogy may be useful her: Consider a step-by-step list of instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, Take a ¼-inch nut,” a mutation might say, “Take a 3/8 inch nut.” Or instead of “Place the round peg in the round hole”, we might get “Place the round peg in the square hole.” Or instead of “Attach the seat to the top of the engine”, we might get “Attach the seat to the handlebars” (but we could only get this if the nuts and bolts could be attached to the handlebars). What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step- say, to build a fax machine instead of a radio.”
Also, I ask what effect did the “New Functions” of the proteins have on the organism as a whole? Proteins in our cells can have mutations and new functions but generally, that leads to a problem in the over-all organism. There can even be segregated populations of human beings who pass on protein mutations to their progeny but the result is rarely desired or beneficial.
Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species
I know what it looks like the coccyx/ tailbone but the problem we have is the way you are looking at it. If you believe in Macroevolution and categorizing things by appearance then it would be easy to say that it is a vestigial tail. But the only way you could prove that to me (who believes in intelligent design) is to show me that it has no function in our bodies. If it was a tail then it should serve no purpose for us since we have no tails. The problem is that it does serve a purpose in tailless primates. So, would that be an example of Evolution or Intelligent Design? Here is a Wikipedia defining of the function of the Tailbone/Coccyx (I did not delete the author’s confirmation of your theory because I hope that you know I would say the same thing to he or she):
Function
In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nakalipithecus (a Miocene hominoid)[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[3] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[1] Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[1]
The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e. defecation, continence, etc): The levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphé, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[1]
Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: The anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.[1] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[4] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.[1]
(emphasis added by Chyuii)
Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including...
Below is a quote from the 6-page (web page) article that you gave me; I have included this quote as credibility for the quote from Francis Crick that is to follow.
Here is a part of the article you gave me:
“The scientists who cracked the genetic code in the 1950's and 1960's worked under the assumption that the code was universal or nearly so (Judson 1996, p. 280-281). These scientists (which included Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and several others) all made this assumption and justified it based upon evolutionary reasoning, even in the complete absence of any direct experimental evidence for a universal code.
"Crick urged on his companions two other simplifying assumptions of great audacity. ... they assumed, with some apprehension, that the genetic code would be the same for all living things. There was no evidence whatever for this; .... Yet universality seemed inevitable for an obvious reason: since a mutation that changed even one word or letter of the code would alter most of a creature's proteins, it looked sure to be lethal." (Judson 1996, p. 280-281)”
Here is what Nobel Peace Prize winner biochemist Francis Crick says in his book Life Itself:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. “
Richard Dawkins (Atheist) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable says:
“ Physics books may be complicated, but… the object and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consist of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and the precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book… Each nucleus ... Contains a digitally coded database larger in information content than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of the body put together. “
Let’s be honest please.
