Science Proves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
danschance said:
1) No it is not rude. What is rude is atheists who come here day after day and try to prove evolution is true when this is a faith based forum.

2) Entropy is discussed in High school beginning chemistry, which for the most part is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics all about. It is a very simple concept which has broad brush implications.

I have taken 5 semesters of physics, 3 semesters of chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, geometry,probability and statistics, 4 semesters of calculus and many other classes on the sciences. So please don't insult my intelligence by saying it is too difficult to discuss because I know better. I could teach the concepts of entropy to 6th graders.
Click to expand...

1) You are actually being quite rude, especially later when you call us "philistines". I have been trying to be as respectful as possible. But you assume not only that im an atheist but that I'm attacking you. I actually cant stand the way the 'atheists' are posting on here, because they're being pretentious jerks. I'm sorry if I came off as one, but I assure you I only want a friendly debate.

2) I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I'm just saying that the high school understanding of entropy isn't entirely correct, which it isn't. It's correct enough to work with but it doesn't get to the core of what it means. I'm a physicist and have taken courses dedicated to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, so thats why I say its a bit more complicated. It probably isn't as complicated conceptually as I was making it out to be, but it still gets harder, especially mathematically. It really just depends on the system your looking at. Some are simply linear 3 variable equations but some are like, convoluted log functions and stuff.

3) its obvious this is going nowhere so I'm done. I should never have gotten involved in this debate again, as it only causes headaches for every single person involved. No one can talk about this civilly cause we've already all made up our minds on whats 'true' and what's not. it just devolves into name calling.
 
Ariel82 said:
Entropy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Entropy-Seminar_2788-l.jpg
Click to expand...

Freaking hysterical comic.
 
Vestarena said:
Wow Crucifiction. This was covered like ten pages ago? You just start over with this bogus "proof" of yours? When the person who started the thread starts chasing their tale in circles, repeating the same bogus argument over and over, I think it's time for everyone to bow out.
Click to expand...

Unless you actually show why the evidence or argument isn't valid all you're
doing is making it easy to point out your strawman fallacy.
 
[h=2]Claim CC200:[/h]There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.[h=3]Source:[/h]Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
[h=2]Response:[/h]
  1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
  2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
    1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
    2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
    3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
    4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
    5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
    6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
    7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
    8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
    9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
    10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
    11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

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

    1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
    2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
    3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
    4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
    5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
    6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
    7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
    8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
    9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

    The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

    1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
    2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
    3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
[h=2]Links:[/h]Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"[h=2]References:[/h]
  1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
  2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
  3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
  4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
  5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
  6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
  7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
  8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
  9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
  10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
  11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
  12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
  13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
  14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
  15. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina
  16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
  17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
  18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
  19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
  20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
  21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
  22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
  23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
  24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
  25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. Coming soon page | register your domain at register.gkg.net

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, EVOLUTION AND THE FOSSIL RECORD ,http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.

CC200: Transitional fossils
 
This post is from another thread.

Drett said:
By the way, please recognise that the cartoon was exaggerating to make a point.

There has been 10 skeleton types attributed to being missing links.

The Sahelanthropus tchadensis,Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis show evolution within apes.

The Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens show evolution within human.
Click to expand...

Don't know where he got the number ten from as there are plenty more transitional forms than he listed
but here's the scientific response to this claim.

[h=2]Claim CC050:[/h]All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.[h=2]Response:[/h]
  1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

    Intermediate fossils include


    And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
    • Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
    • Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
    • Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
    • Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
    • A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
    • A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
  2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
  3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
    • Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
    • The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
    • A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
    • Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

[h=2]Links:[/h]Foley, Jim. 1996-2004. Fossil hominids: The evidence for human evolution. Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

Drews, Carl, 2002. Transitional fossils of hominid skulls. Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls[h=2]References:[/h]
  1. Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.
  2. Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.
  3. Foley, Jim, 1996-2003. (see above)
  4. Foley, Jim, 2002. Comparison of all skulls, Comparison of all skulls
  5. IJdo, J. W., A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders and R. A. Wells, 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 88(20): 9051-9055.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
  6. Max, Edward E., 2003. Plagiarized errors and molecular genetics. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
  7. Taylor, D. M. 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/ See also Taylor, D. M. 2003 (Jun 3). Re: Evolutionary Misconceptions on Evolution.http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=75200cbc.0306031846.50b2bda5%40posting.google.com
  8. White, Tim D. et al., 2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742-747.
  9. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Johanson, D. C., and B. Edgar, 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Leakey, M. and A. Walker, 1997. Early hominid fossils from Africa. Scientific American 276(6) (June): 74-79.

Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford.

CC050: Hominid transition
 
Crucifiction said:
Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:


  1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
  2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
    1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
    2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
    3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
    4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
    5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
    6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
    7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
    8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
    9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
    10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
    11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

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

    1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
    2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
    3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
    4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
    5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
    6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
    7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
    8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
    9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

    The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

    1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
    2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
    3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Links:

Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record.Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation.http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils.On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"References:


  1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
  2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
  3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
  4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
  5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
  6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
  7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
  8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
  9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
  10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
  11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
  12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
  13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
  14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
  15. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina
  16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
  17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
  18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
  19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
  20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
  21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
  22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
  23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
  24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
  25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

Further Reading:

Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes.Nature399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation".http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htmorhttp://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge.Coming soon page | register your domain at register.gkg.net

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.),Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution.http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001.Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute,EVOLUTION AND THE FOSSIL RECORD,http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf, pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987.Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone.Science287: 1576-1579.

CC200: Transitional fossils
Click to expand...

Any of this could be attributed to microevolution. These are all possibilities only if you look at them from a macroevolutionary perspective. Again, they could even more easily be attributed to microevolution.

Frankly, if I wasn't formerly convinced macroevolution is a totally unproven theory based on nothing more than speculation along with an intense desire to believe in it, I would definately not believe it a viable theory now. After reviewing all the points made by both sides of this issue, the side defending macroevolution has convinced me of nothing else but that they cling to this theory for some reason other than its credibility. The only statements made by this side are repeats of statements already fully confronted and refuted. Yet they just make them again and again. Oh well.

By the way, because something is called a transitional lifeform does not make it one. These things have to be proven to make them recognized as fact. Because I say a mule deer is a transitional lifeform between a mule and an elk doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriphena said:
Any of this could be attributed to microevolution. These are all possibilities only if you look at them from a macroevolutionary perspective. Again, they could even more easily be attributed to microevolution.

Frankly, if I wasn't formerly convinced macroevolution is a totally unproven theory based on nothing more than speculation along with an intense desire to believe in it, I would definately not believe it a viable theory now. After reviewing all the points made by both sides of this issue, the side defending macroevolution has convinced me of nothing else but that they cling to this theory for some reason other than its credibility. The only statements made by this side are repeats of statements already fully confronted and refuted. Yet they just make them again and again. Oh well.

By the way, because something is called a transitional lifeform does not make it one. These things have to be proven to make them recognized as fact. Because I say a mule deer is a transitional lifeform between a mule and an elk doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Claim:

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Response:

  1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
  2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
  3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
  4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
  5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
[h=2]References:[/h]
  1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
  2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


Claim:

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.

[h=2]Response:[/h]
  1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
  2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
  3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
  4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
  5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
[h=2]References:[/h]
  1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
  2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



CB901: No Macroevolution
CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
 
Seriphena said:
Any of this could be attributed to microevolution. These are all possibilities only if you look at them from a macroevolutionary perspective. Again, they could even more easily be attributed to microevolution.

Frankly, if I wasn't formerly convinced macroevolution is a totally unproven theory based on nothing more than speculation along with an intense desire to believe in it, I would definately not believe it a viable theory now. After reviewing all the points made by both sides of this issue, the side defending macroevolution has convinced me of nothing else but that they cling to this theory for some reason other than its credibility. The only statements made by this side are repeats of statements already fully confronted and refuted. Yet they just make them again and again. Oh well.

By the way, because something is called a transitional lifeform does not make it one. These things have to be proven to make them recognized as fact. Because I say a mule deer is a transitional lifeform between a mule and an elk doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Claim:

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.

[h=2]Response:[/h]
  1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

    Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

    Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

    Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.
  2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.
[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Wilkins, John, 1997. Macroevolution. Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
 
Rename the thread, "Plagiarism, 101"

I had to poke fun at all of you, but in all honesty to think one is inferior to yourself or does not have all the 'facts' because of their belief is extremely ignorant.

And to be able to copy 95% of the posts and paste them into google to get the original text is hilarious to do. Many of you just copy and pasted full 'idea's' and played them off as your own... Hence why I don't embark on internet debates... The person with the best search engine always "wins"...
 
T_Laurich said:
Rename the thread, "Plagiarism, 101"

I had to poke fun at all of you, but in all honesty to think one is inferior to yourself or does not have all the 'facts' because of their belief is extremely ignorant.

And to be able to copy 95% of the posts and paste them into google to get the original text is hilarious to do. Many of you just copy and pasted full 'idea's' and played them off as your own... Hence why I don't embark on internet debates... The person with the best search engine always "wins"...
Click to expand...


If you point out the errors with the evidence I presented you might have an argument.
 
Crucifiction said:
If you point out the errors with the evidence I presented you might have an argument.
Click to expand...
He's not arguing; that's his point. He's also not pointing out the fallacy of the research pasted; he's drawing attention to what he sees as the hypocrisy and irony of everyone's approach here.

She turned me into a Neanderthal!

-you don't look like a Neanderthal...-

Well.. well I got better...
Click to expand...

"So logically, if she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood!"

Lol! I think my plans just changed for tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back