Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unrelated to science class. Science class teaches the Scientific Method. (Let's call it The SM for short, OK? I'm not sure you can remember it, because you so willfully forget other important facts... but we'lll press on regardless.Or as you might say: "irregardless...")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
Must I really obtain a list of where creationism and observation diverge, or would you mind just Googling it?
Yes, I'd like to see that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Read the story - there would be no "lesson plan". The teacher cannot initiate or present a lecture about creationism. They have to allow a discussion if the subject is brought up.
This is a good thing. Alternate views should be encouraged - I find it very odd that anyone would want to suppress a climate of inquiry. High school students should learn to think critically - this can't happen if one is only exposed to one sided dogma (i.e. evolution).
Sorry but... even "alternate ideas" have to stay within the specific subject matter of the course being presented. You simply cannot "conject" about the best patterns of Lasagna pasta overlays in a course on English literature. Neither can you "conject" about the philosophical ideas of a non-evidentiary subject like Creationism for which there is literally no evidence. It's purely conjecture! Therefore it rightly belongs in a course marked "comparative Religion".
But I understand why you so desperately can't stand the idea of a proven and substantiated idea like Evolution (which is not abiogenesis, btw...) being presented wihtout your need to yowl in protest.
sorrY: Comparative religion is two doors down, on the left, with Professor Obtusicus!
By comparison, the true SM shows us how to set up a research project, complete with all the key and agreed-on components. Such thinking and a logical step-wise approach is totally absent on "conjective" religion, as witnessed by the total absence of the SM's use by Christians, ever, to rebuke our deductions. Go ahead: do the study you disagree with yourself! Rebuke away! We totally invite and appreciate it!
That's the beauty and absolute value of the SM. We scientists who use it in coming to our positive and negative, or neutral, deduction and conclusions are taught that process. It must be followed, essentially without fail, so that even if scientists (not "science", which is not a living evil entity!) make too wild a claim, it is always corrected from within.
But then the dogmatic Christians, sensing some supposed imagined internal disarray, pounce on it like a pack of rabid wolves onto an injured rabbit.
"See! Science is wrong, as always! See: They're wrong and they are fighting! See!???"
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Well... sadly for you the fossils say otherwise. In fact the transition of whales from land mammals to seagoing creatures is spectacularly well documented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData
Something very wonderful happens when you begin to............obey God's Word - The promises HE made begin to happen just as HE SAID THEY WOULD.
Thanks for YOUR WONDERFUL WORD Lord of ALL CREATION! The simplest proof there is!!
And yet, we have all this conflicting unemotional evidence that totally refutes your claims that "there is no evidence for Evolution!"
You have a lot of individual elements to argue with, esp. if you want us to believe that, especially when taken in total, they don't raise even one suspicious eyebrow on your non-critically thinking forehead.
plate tectonics, and now, in a master class all on it's own, and TOTALLY IRREFUTABLE by you:
DNA lineage mapping over time, continents and across different, but now proven to be related, species.
But then, when all these things are independently corroborated by independent scientific research teams, all apparently in on some Vast Global Conspiracy, and they coincidentally time all the necessary key elements of Evolution to near-identical points in time and locale, [as we predcited...] what then do you yowl, right on cue?
"There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all for the Fantasy of Evolution!"
Welllllll now... uhmmm.... right you are. And this REALLY improves our impression of your scientific accumen, I gotta tell you!
So! Is THAT what they tell you to yowl over on Answers in Genesis or The Institute for Creation Research? Hmmm.. I'd be lookin' for a far more reputable info-source than them if I were you: it's so easy to prove they are scientific buffoons, or abject liars, or worse: both. and hiding under the loin cloth of the Jessus myth to boot....
I recently read one of their so-called rebukes of the seminal 2008 pub-date work of Dr. Richard Lenski, Univ. of Chicago I believe, on his witnessed and also, technically IRREFUTABLE work that shows DNA mutations, all recorded OVER 22 YEARS of painstaking research and documentation.
In essence, those pikers, desperately afraid, proceeded to make all their concerns up, or exaggerate the very minor corrections that Dr. Lenski had himself made in his conservative conclusions. NOTE: Any good scientist always includes statements on what could be improved in subsequent work, and in fact, Lenski's grad students have made all those research design corrections.
They all fought for the scraps of that wounded rabbit, for sure! But there were literally no actual valid objections.
So what does the creative but increasingly desperate IDT'r do? They make it up of course. [Intransigent Dogmo-Theist, fyi!]
It's an ongoing evolutionary (small "e" here...) process, built in to The SM's design. Science is always improving things, unlike the process of denials of any fundamentalist crowd with only one dimension to their thinking, and only one story to go on.!
So... what do you suppose his next publication will inargably PROVE?
Very Ethical behavior, Chrisitan fellows!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData
where is the name of the artist that drew this? I want to point out some facts about this imposter - i.e. a drawing is not proof!!
THAT BUNCH OF B.S. IS NOT DOCUMENTED it is someone's imagination!! (GONE WILD).
The design process is spectacular in all living things. NOTHING? - CREATED everything!
PROVE IT ?- you can't!
There are only TWO choices - just two - no other choices exist in this world.
Jesus Christ was a bigger liar than Obama
Jesus Christ was who HE CLAIMED HE WAS.
He either told the truth or.............he lied about everything.
No other choices exist.
Too many people wrote about HIM 'outside' of the bible! He is indeed a historical figure of fact; The apostle Paul is an historical figure also in fact: And more books are written about paul than any other person on this earth. EXPLAIN THAT -
All my children believe - because of what they have experienced!! I believe because of what I have experienced.
Jesus said in John chapter 10 My sheep know my voice... I call my sheep by name!!
Ahhh yes: your sheeple kids. I feel so very sorry for the one-dimensional education you're giving them. I'll bet you totally deny Evolution and won't speak a positive word about it in your home, and yet you'd like to force the public school system (that I pay for with my tax dollars..) to ram it's mythology down everyone's throat as an "alternate" but totally conjecture-based hypothesis? when there's so many other possibilites, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Unicorns & tree-dancing mushroom-dwelling faeries or pet T-Rexs or Noah's Ark...
How generous and fair-minded of you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
I agree with the above post 100%. If you really do also - then I sincerely hope that you are not one of those who makes inane statements like "evolution is an indisputable fact". There are individuals in this forum who say that - and based on what you wrote - they are not true scientists.
Here: Let me help you (PS: I'm a rather well educated [at real universities, btw, not some vastly hyper-biased Christian 2-year college that is NOT accredited anywhere, by anyone with any credentials.."Our Lord's College of Christian Values")[/b]:
"Evolution is an indisputable fact!"
Let's face it realists everywhere: given the loads and masses and tonnage of validated, repeated and highly questioned, but then re-validated, and peer-reviewed and then published, research covering several dozen independently-verifiable fields and disciplines, available to anyone to test for themselves.
Go for it, Harrier. Show us your mettle! Prove us all wrong!
But I have no life's work to defend on the subject ...
We kinda figured that out.
Quote:
Well, I don't believe that DNA formed by random chance,
Neither does anyoe else.
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"
This is the kind of dishonest, stolen-glory, deliberately misleading sh.t that makes debate with creationists so incredibly disheartening. Gould et al. were not debating the existence of evolution, they were discussing how it took place - at a steady, non-stopping rate or in bursts.
You're stealing the name and reputation of an actual scientist, of someone who has worked to increase the knowledge of humanity, to support a point of view that you know (or should know) he wouldn't dream of sharing.
Quote:
Can one ever expect to have an honest debate with you, free of purposefully presented falsehoods and distortions?
First off ... I'll take on this "challenge". Secondly, don't try to squirm around relative to the definition of evolution, which even "evolutionists" cannot agree on. So, in very simple language, let's first agree that when we refer to "Evolution Theory" we're talking about Darwin's "Origin of the Species" evolution which is the foundational principle that all modern species originated from a common ancestor ... and not some ever changing form of it, interweaving manufactured excuses and answers that tend to "evolve" in direct relationship to hard challenges that cannot be overcome!
Alright. I'm game for this explanation but let's make one thing clear. Before you move the goalposts we are going to establish the taxonomical clarity that scientists use. We're not going to be using the Creationist version of a four year old's trip to the zoo whereby every primate suddenly becomes a monkey. We don't get to scream "Look! A monkey!" and then say "A chimpanzee is still just a monkey." For the sake of that argument, a chimpanzee is taxonomically classified as such:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Pan
Species: Pan troglodytes
As you can see, the Latin name for the species of chimpanzee is Pan troglodytes - not hominids, not chordates, etc... Although the chimpanzee DOES belong in those respective families, phylums and so on. This will keep everyone honest in so much as that we can talk about speciation with those kinds of cladistics in mind. Once creationists start shifting the goalposts, then suddenly you hear about these alleged transitional fossils that are supposed to exist showing how a crocodile and a duck are supposed to have the "crocoduck" transitional fossil whereby a crocodile gave birth to a duck or vice versa - which is absolutely NOT what evolution claims to be or do. We can plot the mighty "Crocoduck" on a taxonomical chart to get a decent idea of what the common ancestor of the two may have looked like but it will probably resemble nothing close to a Crocodile or a Duck. The same method I use here is precisely how scientists predict what kind of fossils they will find when they go looking for them. That is how Tiktaalik was found - by a predictive model.
So, if we're agreed that we will use a standard scientific taxonomical chart to gauge the evolution of various organisms, then let's get started:
First, let's take a few closely related organisms and look at their taxonomical charts to get a better idea of how they're classified and their various relationships to one another. I've been watching a lot of great videos on African Cats lately so they're fresh on my mind. But, keep in mind, we can literally do this for any two species (Crocodile and Duck, anyone?) to get a good idea of their relationships.
Let's take a look at the lion, the tiger, and the cheetah. I'll first show their taxonomical charts and then I'll write out their taxonomies in case the pictures are hard to read or the link gets broken.
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
Spelled out, it looks like this:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: Panthera Tigris
Lion (Panthera Leo)
Kindgom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: Panthera Leo
And, finally, the Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus):
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Acinonyx
Species: Acinonyx jubatus
Now that we have established a fair taxonomy of these three animals, we can quickly break down what each clade is. Let's start at the top and let's just take the Cheetah for a quick analysis. It is in the Animal Kingdom, it is a chordate (meaning it's a vertebrate), it's a mammal, a carnivore, classified in the family of cats (felidae), and from there it becomes noticeable that at the Genus level it branches away from that of the lion and tiger. Where the lion and tiger are classified under the genus of Panthera, the Cheetah is classified as Acinonyx and, obviously, a species of Acinonyx, known as Acinonyx jubatus is what we call a Cheetah.
What does this tell us and how can we predict an evolutionary model or "transitional fossil" between the Cheetah and Lions and Tiger species? Well, if we look at the breakdown of their taxonomical characteristics, I don't think we need to go into tremendous detail to agree that the three species do indeed share some things in common. They are all animals with vertebrates. They are all mammals that eat meat (carnivores) and they're all classified in the cat family.
Here's where I want to stop for a second and take a brief reprieve to point out a very common Creationist argument. The argument goes something like "It's still just a cat and therefore no 'macroevolution' has occurred because they're cats." This blatantly ignores some of the fundamental properties of what we've deemed to be speciation to advance a preposterous argument. Using this logic, couldn't we just say "They're still animals and therefore no evolution has occurred." Or, perhaps, "They both have spinal cords thus no evolution has occurred." Cats are NOT a species. They are described as being a "Family" which is much higher on the taxonomical chart than that of a species.
Moving on from that brief interlude, if our taxonomy is correct, we should be able to find a fossil that shared characteristics of the lion, the tiger and the cheetah. Because those three animals are described in the same way, this fossilized creature should have the following characteristics:
It should be an animal with a spine. It should be a mammal and eat meat and it should resemble very strongly a cat. From there, it's going to have a few characteristics unique to the cheetah and the lion and tiger. In order to postulate what that might be, we have to look at what separates the Acinonyx genus from the Panthera genus.
After we've derived the differences between the Panthera genus and the Acinonyx genus - mostly dentalia and skull size along with a few behavioral components that are markedly different (cheetahs tend to strangle their prey unlike tigers and lions who maul their pray) we have to go digging for a fossil that would share certain characteristics of the lion, the tiger, and the cheetah.
This process (which is slightly more complex than what I've explained) has been used so many times to unearth a vast array of transitional fossils that it's simply too valuable a tool to ignore.
Let's take a more difficult analysis and look at the crocodile and the duck - the infamous "Crocoduck." What makes this so difficult is their divergence from one another is so radical that to go back in time that far may yield fewer fossils than we'd like. Let's make an attempt, though, to see what we can come up with by using this simple methodology.
First, let's define our two comparative species. For this argument, I'll use the African Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) and the Mallard Duck (Anas Platyrhynchos Domestica)
Their charts look like the following:
African Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus)
The chart reads as such:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Order: Crocodylia
Family: Crocodylidae
Genus: Crocodylus
Species: Crocodylus niloticus
Now, let's look at the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos domestica)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Anseriformes
Family: Anatidae
Genus: Anas
Species: Anas Playthynchos domestica
Like I said, this will be a little tougher because right off the bat we notice that the only thing in common with these two species is that they are animals with spines. In order to go back into our fossil record we have to keep in mind that we are not looking for a cross between a duck and a crocodile. We are going to be looking for an animal with a spine that shares characteristics of a bird and a reptile. We have to look for the characteristics of the two at the divergence point, which in this case, the two species diverge after the Chordate point. Thus, the next step in the chain after a chordate is the Class. Ducks are classified under the Class of Aves (birds) and Crocodiles under the Class of Reptilia (Reptiles). Therefore, we are looking for an animal with a spine that shares characteristics of both a bird and a reptile.
Right away, we know this is going to take us pretty far back in time. It's going to predate the crocodile which means Marty McFly may need to get the Delorean above 88 Mph.
When we look at our fossil record, we get back to the Early Cretaceous period (146MyA - 100MyA... Or approximately last week in Creationist terms) we find a most interesting animal. It is called the Anatosuchus "Duck Crocodile" and did indeed share some common characteristics with the duck and the crocodile to include a very nice duck-like snout. I should point out that this is probably not the common ancestor of the two although it is nice to note the primitive duckbill as one of its prominent features to get a general idea that the morphologies themselves are not evolutionarily impossible. In fact, they seem to have existed much longer ago than I initially thought. Anatosuchus is one prime candidate as the common ancestor of the croc and duck.
Probably the closest we have to such a creature that I am aware of are several variations of the Archosaur. The Archosaur lineage split off into two clades (the two groups we're concerned with anyway) called the Crocodylidae (guess what that eventually became?) and the Dinosauria - which has only one remaining clade... The birds.
This is a slightly better visual representation to get a better idea of what I'm talking about:
By now, you should see that one of my main points in this is to provide a general insight as to why taxonomy is important and how it can help us predict a model of what we should expect to find. It is also to help show that evolution does not talk about change at the "Order" level or the "Family" level but at the species level. I should note that in very rare cases, it is possible for change to occur at the Genus level and though I've not heard of it, it is plausible for a change to occur at the Family level. I should note that we must be very, very careful with making that statement because it would require a set of conditions so extraordinary that I would find it very unlikely and very hard to prove.
Though taxonomy is extremely important, it suffered some early setbacks before we were able to sequence and decode genomes properly. Much of early taxonomy was done by examining physical characteristics of fossil remains and their modern day counterparts. While effective to a large extent, we could only separate a species by its morphological changes and not necessarily its behavioral characteristics. However, I should note that many behavioral characteristics are a result of their physical morphology so, to some extent, it's possible to determine what sort of behavior an animal expressed through its physical morphology. An example would be deciding whether an animal was herbivorous or omnivorous depending by looking at its teeth.
However, now that we have DNA mapping, we honestly don't even need the fossil record - though it is a fun tool to use. We can literally triangulate how far one species is from another species by comparing its genetic code. Chimps and humans? Right around 98% similar. Humans and bananas? About 50% similar. What this largely enables us to do is to properly place species in their precisely accurate taxonomical branch.
I'm not an expert on hippos but I do recall reading a paper where scientists discovered they had the taxonomy all wrong after performing a DNA analysis on it. Initially, they thought the hippo was a descendant of some pig-like creature. Reality is a little stranger than that, though. As it turns out, the hippo showed that it was very closely related to the whale! Fossil evidence found shortly thereafter then showed that the hippo ancestry did something strange. It left the water to go on land, went back to the water, and then went back on land. Now, the hippo almost looks stuck between a land mammal and a sea mammal as so much of its time is spent in the rivers of Africa!
Since DNA can help us with determining the proper taxonomies to a degree of amazing accuracy, it can also help us subsequently determine the fossils we should be looking for. This was how Tiktaalik was discovered and a variety of other great fossil finds as well.
Before I post a list of actual transitional fossils, I want to make it abundantly clear what a transitional fossil is not. A transitional fossil is NOT a mix between two modern species. Nobody has ever purported that to be the case except for Creationists insistent upon discrediting the theory because they don't want to sacrifice a literal interpretation of the Bible. A transitional fossil is simply a fossil which shows common characteristics of a divergence between an ancestor and a derived descendant. That is EXTREMELY different than a mix between two modern species.
Anyway, since we have a good establishment of what a transitional fossil is, I did a quick Google search to come up with a list of transitional fossils. Hopefully this satiates your claim that "No transitional fossils have ever been found."
I started to try and independently verify each of them but I just don't have the time. So, feel free to look any of these up yourself and perform the "taxonomy trick" if you'd like to get a general concept of what you're looking for. This was taken from this site and they did seem to be very accurate of the ones I cross-checked:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too.
Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
[Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through
Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through
Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
3) evolution theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes referred to as "conservation of mass and energy". Without going into great detail (one can research this for themselves), in essence, this scientific Law says that the sum of all energy in a closed system remains constant. Since all life is "energy" ... it can only be altered, or it's form changed, but new and greater amounts cannot be created within that closed system. Therefore, evolution, in terms of both increases in volume and complexity of life (or energy) cannot happen. When it comes to science, scientific "Laws" are relatively rare and absolute entities. There must be no example for which such a law can be violated, else it cannot be a scientific law. And contrary to the oft claims of evolutionists as being purely science based, to dismiss this, as evolutionists must do, is very un-scientific.
Therefore, in order for life to advance in terms of volume and complexity, there must be an outside source providing the additional energy. That doesn't necessarily demand that a "God" be providing it ... just that the system itself cannot, and therefore Darwinian evolution is not possible .. scientifically speaking.
Ummm... Outside source of energy providing additional energy? How about the sun. I hear that provides energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
If evolution were indeed a valid theory, we'd observe way less examples of harmful mutations and way more (or even one) beneficial mutation. According to the theory, the harmful mutations are supposed to be discarded by natural selection, and the beneficial ones maintained. Even cursory examination shows the complete opposite situation exists.
Where did you get this from? What a load of bunk! This makes it sound like evolution is some sort of external force that's just going to come in pick some genetics apart, leave with the bad and keep the good.
Mutations, both good and bad occur. I've explained in a previous post how scientists can perform a gene sweep to determine if a change in a gene is deleterious by studying the population dynamics of a given organism. A positive change is considered advantageous and a negative change is considered deleterious. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that negative mutations are happening at an increasing rate. That entire paragraph is a complete and utter lie. I'm honestly astonished that you'd post such garbage without even doing a cursory check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
5) Based on scientific analysis, species extinction is on the rise. Quite contrary to the theory of evolution which would predict increases in species (given the slow evolutionary mechanisms claimed to produce speciation, we should see new species emerging all of the time), we see the opposite situation occurring, which also happens to fit perfectly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that a closed system will experience gradual disorganization and decline over time. This contradicts evolution.
Again... This is a blatant lie. Nowhere does the theory say that species will flourish because of evolution. Evolution does not predict an increase in species - it only explains the adaptations and the methodology behind the variation in species we see today. Show me where any evolutionary literature that predicts an increase in species, a slow down in extinction! Seriously... This isn't science you're posting. It's blatant, fatuous lies written without even a cursory understanding of any of the science.
GuyInTexas had no problem constructing a concise defense of the anti-evolution position. He did it in response to evolutionist requests for a refutation - just as I am asking for a defense for your position.
I realize it will take a long post or a series of posts to lay out the case - but it can be done. It would make you seem much more credible - then continuing to repeat the mantra "evolution is fact".
As for your saying that I am asking for the "legwork" to be done for me - not so. I will repeat this - I already have studied evolution - what I am looking for is a persuasive defense of the theory - not an explanation of what it is.
Defense of a theory?
Maybe we need to define some terms.
Scientific theories have three criteria that they must meet. They must have a body of evidence to support them. They must make testable predictions and they must be falsifiable. Theory of Evolution (ToE) meets all of those criteria.
It has a body of evidence which has been presented ad naseum in this thread, it makes testable predictions (everything from mitochondrial DNA shifts to fossils of previously unknown species) and is falsifiable (the rabbit in the cambrian).
That is all the "defense" a scientific theory needs.
Oh and FYI, evolution is a fact. Because all evolution is, is the change in allelic frequencies of a population over time, and that is an observable fact. But I suspect you are talking about Theory of Evolution, which is not a fact but a theory. The same way gravity is a fact but gravitation theory is a theory. Separate but related.
So once we have the ToE, what else needs to be done to defend its status as the best theory to describe how life (once it got here and that would be a separate theory) has come to be the way it is today?
LOL....It is not MY theory dude, but is accepted by most of the world, including most Christians.
Calling me gullible was over the line. Sure, I can't think. Thanks for your thoughts.
I NEVER said that I didn't believe in evolution or even that I was Christian (whether or not I am is irrelevant). I'm just saying that those Leftists want no opposition to their theory of evolution. To them, there can be no hint of resistance, or it's all a huge Right indoctrination conspiracy and...
time for another withering cannonade of why all religious folks are backwards.
Calling me gullible was over the line. Sure, I can't think. Thanks for your thoughts.
I NEVER said that I didn't believe in evolution or even that I was Christian (whether or not I am is irrelevant). I'm just saying that those Leftists want no opposition to their theory of evolution. To them, there can be no hint of resistance, or it's all a huge Right indoctrination conspiracy and...
time for another withering cannonade of why all religious folks are backwards.
You cannot deny it. It happens presently.
Oh course we can deny it. Because you are wrong.
If it was only about presenting Theory of Evolution, the "leftists" as you call them would be the ones trying to get science taught in church. But, that isn't happening is it?
No, religious groups are trying to get religion (and creationism is religion not matter how you slice it) taught in SCIENCE class. Why should RELIGION be taught in SCIENCE class? Now if there is a religion elective in the school, sure teach it there but keep the science in the science classroom and the religion out of it.
but we'lll press on regardless.Or as you might say: "irregardless...")
being presented wihtout your need to yowl in protest.
sorrY: Comparative religion is two doors down, on the left, with Professor Obtusicus!
But then the dogmatic Christians, sensing some supposed imagined internal disarray, pounce on it like a pack of rabid wolves onto an injured rabbit.
"See! Science is wrong, as always! See: They're wrong and they are fighting! See!???"
And yet, we have all this conflicting unemotional evidence that totally refutes your claims that "there is no evidence for Evolution!"
You have a lot of individual elements to argue with, esp. if you want us to believe that, especially when taken in total, they don't raise even one suspicious eyebrow on your non-critically thinking forehead.
So! Is THAT what they tell you to yowl over on Answers in Genesis or The Institute for Creation Research? Hmmm.. I'd be lookin' for a far more reputable info-source than them if I were you: it's so easy to prove they are scientific buffoons, or abject liars, or worse: both. and hiding under the loin cloth of the Jessus myth to boot....
I recently read one of their so-called rebukes of the seminal 2008 pub-date work of Dr. Richard Lenski, Univ. of Chicago I believe, on his witnessed and also, technically IRREFUTABLE work that shows DNA mutations, all recorded OVER 22 YEARS of painstaking research and documentation.
In essence, those pikers, desperately afraid, proceeded to make all their concerns up, or exaggerate the very minor corrections that Dr. Lenski had himself made in his conservative conclusions. NOTE: Any good scientist always includes statements on what could be improved in subsequent work, and in fact, Lenski's grad students have made all those research design corrections.
They all fought for the scraps of that wounded rabbit, for sure! But there were literally no actual valid objections.
So what does the creative but increasingly desperate IDT'r do? They make it up of course. [Intransigent Dogmo-Theist, fyi!]
It's an ongoing evolutionary (small "e" here...) process, built in to The SM's design. Science is always improving things, unlike the process of denials of any fundamentalist crowd with only one dimension to their thinking, and only one story to go on.!
So... what do you suppose his next publication will inargably PROVE?
Very Ethical behavior, Chrisitan fellows!
Nope: Neither is this painting...
...or this out-of-date old myths book...
Ahhh yes: your sheeple kids. I feel so very sorry for the one-dimensional education you're giving them. I'll bet you totally deny Evolution and won't speak a positive word about it in your home, and yet you'd like to force the public school system (that I pay for with my tax dollars..) to ram it's mythology down everyone's throat as an "alternate" but totally conjecture-based hypothesis? when there's so many other possibilites, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Unicorns & tree-dancing mushroom-dwelling faeries or pet T-Rexs or Noah's Ark...
How generous and fair-minded of you!
Here: Let me help you (PS: I'm a rather well educated [at real universities, btw, not some vastly hyper-biased Christian 2-year college that is NOT accredited anywhere, by anyone with any credentials.."Our Lord's College of Christian Values")[/b]:
"Evolution is an indisputable fact!"
Let's face it realists everywhere: given the loads and masses and tonnage of validated, repeated and highly questioned, but then re-validated, and peer-reviewed and then published, research covering several dozen independently-verifiable fields and disciplines, available to anyone to test for themselves.
Go for it, Harrier. Show us your mettle! Prove us all wrong!
Or shush!
Review: Two Stars Out of Five
Okay, so I read the new great fiction novel by rifleman, and I gotta tell you, it just seemed bad. Here are my reasons:
1) generous use of a word banned by the UN for its ridiculous sound (yowl)
2) complete over exaggeration of facts (not to mention gratuitous insults heaped on with everything from religion to the kitchen sink)
3) its overwhelming size, which immediately must suggest intelligence!
Rifleman is especially good at deluding points and having a fact to insult ratio of 1:3. His insistence on the qualities of evolution are based on his rants and/or hate of people who aren't like him.
His disregard for events that occurred in history (such as the "painting" and the "books" chronicles) with many a historical proof/record was shocking. I mean, it was a work of fiction, but that's way too much artistic license.
Some positive aspects: rifleman is a fan of South Park (the flying-spaghetti monster is a flawed allegory to the Christian God)...always good for a self-touted genius. Also, generally, most people besides atheists ALSO pay for public school, and since its a majority, you fellows can home school your Commie runts! Besides, it's just a theory...
Another fine aspect of his book is his unapologetic anger and hate towards people that are different! So refreshing!
Anyway, 2 out of 5 stars...pick up "Biography of a Ranting Hot-Head" by rifleman today!!...but only at liberal bookstores.
If it was only about presenting Theory of Evolution, the "leftists" as you call them would be the ones trying to get science taught in church. But, that isn't happening is it?
No, religious groups are trying to get religion (and creationism is religion not matter how you slice it) taught in SCIENCE class. Why should RELIGION be taught in SCIENCE class? Now if there is a religion elective in the school, sure teach it there but keep the science in the science classroom and the religion out of it.
Uh, actually, no...I'm preeeeeeeeeeeety sure the Left is trying to keep other ideas out of the classroom. You're looking out the wrong side of the binoculars, friend.
You can't get science taught at church, because it's a choice to go there. No, you need an effective way to get children believing whatever you want them to...TV's good, but only on weekends really....the internet? maybe...
AHA! School! They have to go there!
Creationism, regardless of its actual value, is apparently evolution's enemy...and it must be destroyed...
Calling me gullible was over the line. Sure, I can't think. Thanks for your thoughts.
I NEVER said that I didn't believe in evolution or even that I was Christian (whether or not I am is irrelevant). I'm just saying that those Leftists want no opposition to their theory of evolution. To them, there can be no hint of resistance, or it's all a huge Right indoctrination conspiracy and...
time for another withering cannonade of why all religious folks are backwards.
You cannot deny it. It happens presently.
What? If anyone called you gullible, it wasn't me...Perhaps you labeled yourself..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Besides, it's just a theory...
