What does the fossil record say?

[waitasec]

but serious debate now exists about its sufficiency.

isn't that an over statement?

 

[David M]

It goes to his competency if he continues to assert "irreducible Complexity"....

Don't forget that he admitted that for ID to be considered science the definitions would have to be altered to such a degree that Astrology would also then be considered scientific.

 

[newhope101]

Don't forget that he admitted that for ID to be considered science the definitions would have to be altered to such a degree that Astrology would also then be considered scientific.

Evolutionists use words and phrases such as 'accelerated evolution', punctuated evolution to turn seeming magic into seemingly scientific terms. Reallly they are just a magical exlanation for the evidence you find that does not appear to correlate well with any status quo.

Didn't Darwin propose traits arise once, fixate and spread? Now you know better. Many traits have arisen independently.

Many traits are irreducibly complex, including flight. You have flying fish with what you call fins that work as well as a bird glider yet you have all sorts of theories around flight and decent from dinosaurs. You have bats that use a form of radar invented long before mankind. All you theories of half wings in tetrapods or half echolation ability on the way to bats or the eye are truly incredible, changing heating systems from cold to hot blooded etc are all truly incredible. It is much more parsinomous to say these traits appear independently in kinds because they were created independently.


The eyes of vertebrates (left) and invertebrates such as the octopus (right) developed independently: vertebrates evolved an inverted retina with a blind spot over their optic disc, whereas octopuses avoided this with a non-inverted retina.
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You cannot provide any evidence whatsoever of evolution other than somatic responses like immunity

So we're in agreement that it is evidence of evolution. Correct?

Immunity will never lead to speciation lovey, no matter how you convolute and strain the point.

But that's just it. I've convoluted nothing. I've given you absolutely no reason to assume that I posit immunity being a factor for speciation. You keep harping on this and I never introduced the notion.

Immunity is not an adaptive change that leads to speciation darls.

Nor have I suggested that it is....so why are still rattling on about this?

That is the point without straining asides.

No, the point was to show wilnson that "beneficial Mutations" do occur and are part of the Evolutionary process which you seem to agree as well as the wiki source you cited a few pages ago in addition to being what we see in "Natural Selection" which is something wilson's "creation scientist" confirmed.

 

[painted wolf]

Yay fossils!

What about this guy?

Close up of the skull and flesh ripping teeth.

Close up of the hooves.

wa:do

ps. this is the group I'm hoping to do my masters/PhD on... soo odd...

and now for fun... a cow hunting and eating chickens.
[youtube]R9vxHN8_jSE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9vxHN8_jSE

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Many traits are irreducibly complex, including flight. You have flying fish with what you call fins that work as well as a bird glider

Flying fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well they're certainly not wings but I'm curious as to how you determine this species meets the supposed criteria of "irreducible complexity". Shortening their fins or possibly removing the fin altogether will prevent the fish from gliding above the water but not prevent the fish from swimming. The fish continues to function as a fish without the ability to glide so this hardly meets the definition of "IC"
[youtube]8nEwte-x-iw[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nEwte-x-iw

The eyes of vertebrates (left) and invertebrates such as the octopus (right) developed independently: vertebrates evolved an inverted retina with a blind spot over their optic disc, whereas octopuses avoided this with a non-inverted retina.
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wiki you cite does not dispute evolution of the eye. In fact it endorses it and seems to stand as a rebuttle article against "irreducible complexity". If you're positing this as being created then it is a pretty bad design.
[youtube]Bxsnqamvl0Y[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxsnqamvl0Y&feature=related

But we know that the eye has evolved. This is an old debunked argument creationist raise.
[youtube]1TEKDWAe_b8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TEKDWAe_b8

 

[painted wolf]

It also depends on what species of flying fish you are talking about. There are 64 species of the critters after all.

Are you taking about the less complex ones with two wings or the more complex ones with four wings?

The number of "wings" is irreducible after all.

Not that this has anything to do with the OP. :tsk:

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

You’re going to have to deal with this again:

ALL IS NOT WELL WITH EVOLUTION
There is a live and growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian theory.
Darwinian theory is not accepted by all scientists.

That is just propaganda, and desperate one at that, Wilson.

One might just as well say that not all teachers agree that math should be taught to children. In fact, it would probably be a more legitimate claim.

 

[outhouse]

its funny we have these two wonderful people, who want to disprove reason, reality and the truth.

and replace it with a 3000 year old fable full of proven lies a 1rst grader knows is horse pucky.

facts VS myth holy cow! could we be walking backwards in time any faster.??? give m,e a break.



has either one of these two fine people replaced evolution with their own hypothesis yet, or are they still two bags of wind???

 

[newhope101]

So we're in agreement that it is evidence of evolution. Correct?
No it is evidence that your researchers really do not know what they are talking about. I say if you have good evidence that birds evolved from dinos and good evidence that birds decended from the trees down via gliders, then effectively you have no evidence for anything. Either these science heads know what they are looking at is convincing and robust or they or they do not. Why challenge the staus quo if the theory is satisfactorily sewn up? Sorry champ, you do not have evidence.
Ancient Birds Flew On All-Fours

But that's just it. I've convoluted nothing. I've given you absolutely no reason to assume that I posit immunity being a factor for speciation. You keep harping on this and I never introduced the notion.
You know what you get told. It is not your fault.


Nor have I suggested that it is....so why are still rattling on about this?



No, the point was to show wilnson that "beneficial Mutations" do occur and are part of the Evolutionary process which you seem to agree as well as the wiki source you cited a few pages ago in addition to being what we see in "Natural Selection" which is something wilson's "creation scientist" confirmed.

I think Wilsoncole and I want you to provide evidence of something more than somatic changes as evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. We understand this is likely the best you can provide or undoubted you would have moved on by now.

While you continue to use things like immunity, or changing colours, or growing a smaller or larger beak, you have not provided evidence of the mechanism that morphs one kind into another. You and your researchers have only demonstrated how one kind keeps fit and responds to the environment while staying the same kind. It doesn't matter if there is insufficient time or if 600 generations of fruitfly or anything else isn't long enough. The point is that if you haven't, then you haven't, regardless of the escuses.

There are differences in your DNA and my DNA yet we are the same species. We are not going to diverge and speciate from each other because of your immunity or the colour of our skin or hair. These are somatic changes and may influence survival of the fittest. However survival of the fittest does not, in itself, illustrate how a chimppy creature became human, and neither does the immune system.

So whoever Ardi was, she could have fantastic immunity, she may have been just the right colour or size to attract a mate better than the rest of the gals, she may have had a great imune system and lived long years and reproduced prolifically, but that aint going to to make her decendants human. That just means her kind would adapt and the best of the clan would be more successful, but still remain her own kind...forever, untill extinction, where something went horribly wrong.

What genes or mutations were responsible for Ardi growing a bigger brain and what research backs that, and does it use presumptive modeling or have you demonstrated same in the lab?

What led some aquatic creatures to morph into air breathers if the function was not created in the kind initially, what use is a half wing and how and why was that selected? These issues are still up for grabs, with 'common thinking' being proven wrong many times.

These morphological changes and accompanying genomic changes are the types of changes that lead to species diverging to the point of inability to succesfully mate. Evidence of immune systems and colour schemes just don't cut it for me Penguin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think Wilsoncole and I want you to provide evidence of something more than somatic changes as evidence of one kind morphing into another kind.

For us to do this, you have to define precisely what you mean by "kind", and precisely how you differentiate between one "kind" and another "kind".

 

[newhope101]

Flying fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well they're certainly not wings but I'm curious as to how you determine this species meets the supposed criteria of "irreducible complexity". Shortening their fins or possibly removing the fin altogether will prevent the fish from gliding above the water but not prevent the fish from swimming. The fish continues to function as a fish without the ability to glide so this hardly meets the definition of "IC"
[youtube]8nEwte-x-iw[/youtube] You are misrepresenting different arguments into one to cause confusion. There are researchers that propose flight began from the trees, not dinos. I say flight appears to have already been accomplished by another species, the fish. Perhaps birds evolved from fish? Why not? Birds and mammals are warm blooded yet researchers do not alledge that we have a close ancestral connection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nEwte-x-iw

The wiki you cite does not dispute evolution of the eye. In fact it endorses it and seems to stand as a rebuttle article against "irreducible complexity". If you're positing this as being created then it is a pretty bad design. The octopus likes his eye, I am sure. It works for him.
[youtube]Bxsnqamvl0Y[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxsnqamvl0Y&feature=related

But we know that the eye has evolved. This is an old debunked argument creationist raise.
[youtube]1TEKDWAe_b8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TEKDWAe_b8

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.[2][3]
Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale.
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So SOME components APPEAR to have evolved once. Yet, complex, image forming eyes evolved 50-100 times. Complex eyes APPEAR to have evolved in a rapid burst of evolution during the Cambrian.

It appears to me that you and your researchers really have no idea what a half functioning eye would do, or who had them, or whatever. All you know is that some creatures today have very different systems. The rest is theoretical and really you and your researhers have no idea, That's the truth.

I think it is very cheeky and misleading of you to make out the status quo is anything to the contrary.

Indeed this is an excellent refute to TOE, that you are unable to answer by any method other than a wish list. You wish you had evidence of evolving complexity of the eye, but you do not. Indeed the evidence, complex eyes suddenly appearing in the cambrian, is supportive of creation. You need you theoretical assumptions of probably, likely, maybe, to turn the creation into a mystery.

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself. The theory of evolution is the only thing that is evolving into another kind on this planet.

 

[outhouse]

blah blah blah blah blah

still twisting truth and reality the wrong way I see

 

[waitasec]

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself. The theory of evolution is the only thing that is evolving into another kind on this planet.

spoken like a true pseudoscientist

 

[newhope101]

For us to do this, you have to define precisely what you mean by "kind", and precisely how you differentiate between one "kind" and another "kind".

Obviously a kind refers to the intial creation of each kind by God, and their decendants. You'll need to head to another thread if you want to go there. It has already been established that creationists are able to define kind well enough for discussion purposes. RF is not a scientific panel and a definition of kind does not require a theory of everything. Baramins are an ID attempt, I have provided some that suit me, others have put forward their own. Evos do not have to like nor accept any definition of kind; as if any evolutionist would!.

 

[newhope101]

spoken like a true pseudoscientist

Yep and I can give you a plethora of examples...here's a few

Evolution is a nice smooth gradual process. Oh No it ain't. You found what you call fossils that have lead to puntuated evo theories. Let's change what we expect to have happened to fit the evidence with more theories and DIS-parsimony.

Humans must have evolved from knuckle walkers and you had the evidence to prove it at the time. Oh No..wait. We didn't. So now TOE purports a change here.

Traits arise once (Darwin), fixed in a population and hence the morphological similarities and traits depict ancestry. Oh No..Wait...they don't. Traits have arisin many times individually in very distantly related species.

When I come back I hope to find your examples of anything related to evolutionary evidence that has remained constant, so clear that it is not debated, and not refuted by other research. GO!

You know what I'll get? Let me predict the usual response.

Evolution is meant to be chaotic because it responds to incoming data and that proves it is true...or something along those lines Come on now, I think I have shown the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution....with many more changes to come.

The only thing that has remained constant is that every kind alive today decended from something else. The from what(whale hippo etc), how(genetic drift, RNA regulation, social factors, horizontal gene transfer in multicelled organisms etc), when(5 million or 10 million chimp/human divergence etc) and why (more than adaptation etc) constantly change for many species. Why should anyone believe any of it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Obviously a kind refers to the intial creation of each kind by God, and their decendants. You'll need to head to another thread if you want to go there. It has already been established that creationists are able to define kind well enough for discussion purposes.

Then can you provide that definition, as well as a method of testing that definition?

RF is not a scientific panel and a definition of kind does not require a theory of everything. Baramins are an ID attempt, I have provided some that suit me, others have put forward their own. Evos do not have to like nor accept any definition of kind; as if any evolutionist would!.

In other words: "Kind" is a useless label that could mean anything, and can't be tested?

If you cannot clearly explain what, precisely, a "kind" constitutes then you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to claim that all species or populations remain within certain kinds. You are attempting to pass off nonsense as science.

 

[camanintx]

I think Wilsoncole and I want you to provide evidence of something more than somatic changes as evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. We understand this is likely the best you can provide or undoubted you would have moved on by now.

If you think that genetic traits such as sickle cell anemia and adult lactose tolerance are purely somatic, then you haven't been paying attention.

There are differences in your DNA and my DNA yet we are the same species. We are not going to diverge and speciate from each other because of your immunity or the colour of our skin or hair. These are somatic changes and may influence survival of the fittest. However survival of the fittest does not, in itself, illustrate how a chimppy creature became human, and neither does the immune system.

Evolution won't lead to separate species (cladogenesis) unless you have reproductive isolation for a very long period of time. Otherwise you will only see is one species changing over time (anagenesis). Since humans have become quite adapt at travelling all over the world, no one should expect separate species of human to pop up any time soon.

 

[camanintx]

The only thing that has remained constant is that every kind alive today decended from something else. The from what(whale hippo etc), how(genetic drift, RNA regulation, social factors, horizontal gene transfer in multicelled organisms etc), when(5 million or 10 million chimp/human divergence etc) and why (more than adaptation etc) constantly change for many species. Why should anyone believe any of it?

Because you don't have a better explanation than common descent for the mountains of corroborating evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry, comparative anatomy, paleontology, geographical distribution, observed natural selection and observed speciation.

 

[painted wolf]

I think Wilsoncole and I want you to provide evidence of something more than somatic changes as evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. We understand this is likely the best you can provide or undoubted you would have moved on by now.

While you continue to use things like immunity, or changing colours, or growing a smaller or larger beak, you have not provided evidence of the mechanism that morphs one kind into another. You and your researchers have only demonstrated how one kind keeps fit and responds to the environment while staying the same kind. It doesn't matter if there is insufficient time or if 600 generations of fruitfly or anything else isn't long enough. The point is that if you haven't, then you haven't, regardless of the escuses.

Still don't understand the basics of mutations yet huh?

Blue eyes, red hair, lactose tolerance and so on in humans isn't somatic change. You were born with between 100-200 genetic mutations, those are not somatic changes.

So now, about those fossils...

wa:do

ps... more artiodactyles eating meat... a Duiker hunting frogs and Bambi snacks on Thumper.