First, I am posting slowly as my add –on keyboard is dead and I have to type and the most user –unfriendly laptop keyboard I have ever come across and, transfer it to the machine that is logged onto internet.
Quote:
...very clever post rm..."IDTr" indeed!
What you call "microevolution" creationists call "adaptive variation"...which over the short term does occur.
What you fail to mention is that man has his hand in the proverbial cookie jar insuring that many adaptive variations take place over the short term. Examples are dogs, cats, pigeons, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, etc...
|
Man has indeed used the mechanism of natural selection to make it selective breeding. It proves that the process exists and ‘micro – evolution’ (which you accept) does happen in nature. Evolutionary change is a fact. You just deny that it could ever become ‘Macro’.
Quote:
As for "macroevolution" you'll probably complain that it's "unreasonable" to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the "normal procedures used in historical science research. Why call it science then if the modern definition of science includes the origin of everything, without any contribution by G-d.
Is this your (philosophical) "rule" of "methodological naturalism? Why mince words...just call it what it is...atheism...a religion to be accepted on faith.
If macroevolution is true then there should be hundreds of series of intermediate forms in the fossil record.
|
There are, but Creationists rejects, deny and ignore them. Tell me, have you never ever looked to see what evolutionists claim as transitional forms or do you just dismiss them and claim there are none?
Quote:
|
Consider the second law of thermodynamics, or the entropy principle, as a very strong evidence against macroevolution, and blah blah blah...yeah I know you've heard it all before...and then you'll probably say something like: 'Of course, the earth is not a closed system but gets vast energy inputs from the sun. Even the surface of the primitive earth had many energy sources that could have been available for organic synthesis'...blah blah blah.
|
Love it – you come out with some stock, discredited, (I believe even Creationism accepts that these are not good arguments) arguments, give the refutation and then brush that aside with ‘Blah, blah’ Clear evidence that you are not willing to listen to facts.
I am. I accept that ‘Macro-evolution’ is not observed – not even to my satisfaction. I keenly feel the need to have a cat turn into a flying squirrel (though evolution – deniers would argue it was just a changed cat). It is unreasonable to demand the sort of change that took millions of years – even Eohippus to Horse (still a horse; just bigger) or even Ambulocetus to Whale (still a whale – it just had legs) and so we see how ‘micro – evolution gets stretched to breaking – point. But even that can’t overcome the fossil evidence – I’d say now proof, it is so strong – of dinosaurs evolving into birds, To say that you deny that simply because it isn’t occurring before your werry eyes is like saying that you deny the solving of a crime or the discoveries of archeology – because you don’t see them with your own eyes. But you do, of course, and only refuse to apply the same method of evaluation to evolution –theory because you believe that it conflicts with your faith –belief.
Quote:
Solar radiation, lightning, meteorite impacts, radioactivity, volcanoes, and cosmic rays are destructive forces, not constructive. In the absence of both a pre-imposed directing program and complex integrative mechanism (neither of which naturalistic evolution could have), they would never synthesize organisms or increase their complexity; instead they would disintegrate any they encountered!
Perhaps you should posit a few just-so-stories on how cheetahs learned to run fast, or on how bats learned to fly.
If you really are convinced that macro-evolution is an absolute fact of science then surely there must be at least a few complete transitional series from one family of higher animals to another somewhere. Not one or two very questionable specimens, but real step-by-step series that clearly document the respective transitions from one kind to a higher kind on the evolutionary tree.
Good luck evolving into a higher life form...
|
Mostly answered above, except that your claim that radioactivity, volcanoes and (by implication) the natural forces of change are all destructive and could never evolve the complex world that we have without some guiding direction. Almost you are accepting Theistic evolution here as it seems to be saying that evolution did happen, but it needed God to make it work. However, I suppose your argument is a simpler one – order cannot come out of chaos; a whirlwind in a junkyard cannot assemble an aircraft. That just ignores the forces of natural order – in fact you refute yourself as what would not be physically viable would not last and only those physical forms which did would persist. Natural physical order HAS to emerge from ‘Chaos’ and postulating a divine designer behind it is redundant.
(A few) transitional fossils
Transitionals - Fish
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).
Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).
Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).
Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.
Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).
Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).
Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).
These creatures were related to the lungfish of their time, and almost certainly all had lungs themselves.
It would be a mistake to think that the first tetrapods moving on land needed limbs capable of bearing their full weight; legs sprawled to the side would be enough to move about with. One thing the above fossils seem to show is that legs first evolved for crawling over the bottom of the water; only later did their use on land become paramount.
Dinosaur - bird
Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).
Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009).
Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.
Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).
Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).
Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.
The first feathered dinosaurs found were more recent than Archaeopteryx — feathered dinosaurs didn't die out as soon as birds evolved — but we now have Anchiornis, which has shown that feathered dinosaurs did indeed exist before Archaeopteryx.
Synapsids - mammals
Strictly speaking, the group that gave rise to mammals were not true reptiles (though they were closely related). Therefore, there is no transition from reptiles to mammals, but rather from synapsids to mammals. However, the terms mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are still sometimes used for these transitional fossils.
Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).
Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 2008) akin to those of modern mammals.
Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs: closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).
Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.
Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).
Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).
Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic: heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales: a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).
Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).
Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.
Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.
Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).
Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).
Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).
Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 1968).
Horses
Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).
Apes - humans
Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's.
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).
Miscellaneous
* Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
* Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 2008).
* Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
* Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
* Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
* Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
* Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 2008).
* Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
* Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
* Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
* Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
* Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
* Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod [i.e. amphibian] and advanced amniote [i.e. reptile] characters" (Prothero, 2007).
* Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
* Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).
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.
Bingo. I killed all your arguments! And... it was SO easy! Read all about it!
) denials. As for how we NOW look into very old Evolutionary changes, you forget: we now have, since about 2007, the very frightening (for you guys at least..) DNA genome mapping and tracking, where we can follow mtDNA (look it up, and everything it now supports, like lineage tracking, physical overland migration patterns that still show ancient lineage from an earlier "tribe" now imbedded into both modern Asians, northern Chinese, and Aussie Aboriginals.) 
