Evolution Pros and Cons

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by questor

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one even has a song to go with it:

YouTube - Tiktaalik (Your Inner Fish)

Originally Posted by questor

Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/archaeopteryx.html

Originally Posted by questor

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. ...

As many fossils as would be expected to be found have been found. The odds that a body will coincidentally be naturally preserved are incredibly small. An animal has to die in a place like the sediments built up on the perimeter of a lake in order to be fossilized.

Originally Posted by questor

Here are some comments from scientists interested in evolution with the link at the end.

Not one of those scientists are evolutionary biologists.
Project Steve | NCSE
Also, I point you to the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve. Project Steve is a satirical list of over 900 guys named "Steve" who accept the fact of evolution. It is intended to make the above lists compiled by creationists look silly, because real science is not done by lining up a bunch of scientists and getting them to sign a petition, it is done with evidence published and reviewed by scientific peers.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by questor

Why don't those who don't wish to discuss this subject ply their talents elsewhere?
Instead of just criticizing a quote from the link, why not offer a scientific rebuttal? All I'm seeing here is the usual knee-jerk support for an unproved theory with no attempt to uncover the science in it. If the theory is correct so be it, if it incorrect or needs tweaking, so be it. I'm not pushing either way, I'm just discussing an opposing view. It seems that some here do not understand the difference in variance(skin color) and what it would take to change one species to another. I'm surprised at the virulence of the ad hominem attacks. This same type of attack would undoubtedly get me banned from the site. Anyone who does not wish to participate in the discussion doesn't have to. Instead of attacking me, why not offer a scientific rebuttal to the information presented?

What are you talking about?
Is this your reply to me?

I put a lot of effort into reading through that link you provided and, while I didn't go into their problems with explaining entropy, I did make a valid (IMO) observation about the tactics of their argument (i.r.t. thermodynamics).

Did you think I was "criticizing a quote from the link?"
I wasn't ctiticizing the quotes (except for the Jeremy Rifkin ref.) as they are valid. I added the quotes in my reply to show what they were talking about.
It's just the way this site puts snippets of valid science together, and the erroneous conclusion that they draw, that draws my critique. Do you not think this is "a scientific rebuttal?"

...to your new point....
I will agree that skin color variation is very different from variance into a new species. These involve different mechanisms, though still within evolutionary parameters.

I'll agree also, "I'm not pushing either way, I'm just discussing an opposing view."
Will you agree that the refuter's website "missed the boat" on that particular thermodynamics argument? I haven't looked at the rest of the site yet. Perhaps others will pick some other section to critique. I am still looking forward to commenting on their sections about materialism, but must read them first.

~SA

[questor]

Quote:'' Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. '' This indicates that out of the thousands of fossils, two transitional were found? Is there any line of succession we can follow either backward or forward? The Project Steve proves nothing to me. You could have a million signatures on a subject and still be wrong. If evolution to you is variation in a species due to environmental factors, I say yes, they are readily observable. If evolution means all life descended from a primordial soup, I say give some hard evidence. Several of the quotes were from Darwin himself.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Quote:'' Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. '' This indicates that out of the thousands of fossils, two transitional were found? Is there any line of succession we can follow either backward or forward? The Project Steve proves nothing to me. You could have a million signatures on a subject and still be wrong. If evolution to you is variation in a species due to environmental factors, I say yes, they are readily observable. If evolution means all life descended from a primordial soup, I say give some hard evidence. Several of the quotes were from Darwin himself.

Questor, the fossils shown are hard evidence, how much harder do you need? Living specimens? It has already been explained that very few animals are ever fossilized, we have a great many transitional fossils considering how few animals are actually fossilized. The one mentioned just happens to be a obvious one. Actually almost all animals are transitional in some way as are all fossils. Just because a fossil isn't obviously half fish and half reptile doesn't mean it's not transitional in some way. If you are expecting to see an animal that has a front half of a lizard and a back half of a fish then you are wasting all of our times. Even a transitional animal will not be something that crazy. Such an animal would have problems surviving to start with and that not the way it works. Steps from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals or to dinosaurs were not clean clear steps, there were thousands of transitional steps most too small to see individually from species to species but the over all trend was from the water to the land. Lot of tiny baby steps not huge half one or the other steps.

[questor]

Moon, tell me why the fossil population of animals in a relatively small area, say Australia, can show such diversity since the environment is the same for all?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Moon, tell me why the fossil population of animals in a relatively small area, say Australia, can show such diversity since the environment is the same for all?

Questor, are you seriously suggesting that Australia is not a large area or that it's not a diverse ecosystem? Australia has everything from rain forests to desert scrub lands to salt pan deserts. Not many continents have the diversity of Australian habitats. Add to that the fact that Australia has been isolated for far longer than any other continent, I don't understand how austraila can be an example to support your argument.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a good evolutionary test. The theory is random mutations leads to adaptions to the environment via selective advantage. To test this, we will start with mice and artificially induce random mutations. We can't use logic to plan the mutations, since that would prove genetics evolves using some rational schema.

What should happen, if the theory is correct, is not only the perpetuation of the mice sample, but better adaptation. If we mess up successive generations of mice, due to random mutations, it would show random will not work and the theory is wrong at least in part.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is a good evolutionary test. The theory is random mutations leads to adaptions to the environment via selective advantage. To test this, we will start with mice and artificially induce random mutations. We can't use logic to plan the mutations, since that would prove genetics evolves using some rational schema.

What should happen, if the theory is correct, is not only the perpetuation of the mice sample, but better adaptation. If we mess up successive generations of mice, due to random mutations, it would show random will not work and the theory is wrong at least in part.

Without some sort of environmental or other pressure your experiment would be moot, even with a fast reproducing animal like a mouse it might take many decades to see any significant mutations other than bad ones, the ratio of bad to good is quite high.

[questor]

Moon, let me put it another way. How do you explain such diversity in fossil strata? If the animals in the layer were all exposed to a similar environment, why wouldn't they develop similar traits? Why would some eat meat and others grass? Why would some grow wings and others grow horns? Do their genes have some kind of signal mechanism that says.. I need wings, let's grow some?
By the way, can you give an example of a succesful mutation that can be heritable?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Moon, let me put it another way. How do you explain such diversity in fossil strata? If the animals in the layer were all exposed to a similar environment, why wouldn't they develop similar traits? Why would some eat meat and others grass? Why would some grow wings and others grow horns? Do their genes have some kind of signal mechanism that says.. I need wings, let's grow some?
By the way, can you give an example of a successful mutation that can be heritable?

Animals in similar environments do indeed develop similar traits it's called convergent evolution, dolphins, and ichthyosaurs are examples of this. What you are talking about is divergent evolution, if all animals were vegetarian there would be far less animals. the divide between grass eaters and those that eat them started out way before the animals you see now came to be. Animals didn't just grow wings, there is no mechanism that says we need wings lets grow some, the wings were evolved over thousands of generations in small steps as were horns. such things usually start out as other things and are then slowly changed into other uses. As for successful mutations, there are people in the Mediterranean that have a mutation that makes then less susceptible to heart disease, others of European decent that are immune to aids. a moth in england that was white because it hid on the bark of white barked trees but with the advent of the industrial revolution the soot caused the trees to be black, the moths through predatory pressure changed their color to black, There a great many such examples, you don't have to look very far to find this information.