Scientists unveil missing link in evolution (prophets, famous, truth, purpose)
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.
Talkorigins.org is biased for evolution, if we can't quote Answersingenesis.org because it is biased to the truth (I had to say that), or bias to creation, then we can't reference talkorigins.org as well.
Try to find someone that is not biased towards evolution, and quote them.
Actually Talk Origins, unlike AIG is biased towards truth.
Roxolon, you do not need to create another thread, we have plenty on the subject.
This is true, but there's no thread like my abiogenesis thread. Nobody bothers to define the theory of evolution, for example, or give a summary of the evidence supporting it. This leads to many, many misunderstandings and strawmen.
Here, a little test: could you define the theory of evolution in a couple of sentences? Could Campbell34?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Vestigial does not mean "useless", rather something that was left over from some evolutionary past. I did not say the hip bones in the whale were useless, I said they were not vestigial. Meaning there is no evidence they had legs attached to them in the past. The hip bones are infact important anchor locations for muscles.
4. Vestigial evidence The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.
Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.
Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. In many, it is merely the size of a thin piece of string, about 1 mm in diameter, and often pinched off about midway. All whales have a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears - a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing.
The diaphragm in whales is vestigial and has very little muscle. Whales use the outward movement of the ribs to fill their lungs with air. Finally, Gould (1983) reported several occurrences of captured sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs. Similarly, dolphins have been spotted with tiny pelvic fins, although they probably were not supported by limb bones as in those rare sperm whales. And some whales, such as belugas, possess rudimentary ear pinnae - a feature that can serve no purpose in an animal with no external ear and that can reduce the animal's swimming efficiency by increasing hydrodynamic drag while swimming.
Although this list is by no means exhaustive, it is nonetheless clear that the whales have a wealth of vestigial features left over from their terrestrial ancestors.
Satisfied?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
I do not think that the dates given by isotopic dating give older dates. In fact the dating methods often give much younger dates then the Uniformatarian time scale requires. That is why these number have to be jived to fit. I think that the scale (Uniformatarian time scale) that the isotopes are plotted on is incorrect. There are many issues with isotopic dating that the lists for the reasons against there acuracy goes into pages and pages. Suffice it to say that the past is the past and beyond what we know for certain is all guess work.
I'm not sure you understand me. We could debate the accuracy of various dating methods for ages, but that's not the point. My point is that even if these dating methods are hugely inaccurate*, they still allow us to know if one fossil is older than another. Their order happen to be consistent with the hypothesis that whales descended from land-based mammals.
(*And realize, by the way, just how huge a mistake you're accusing the scientists to have made. Our knowledge about the age of the earth is used in tons of domains. It's ubiquitous in science. Millions of scientists use it every day. When looking for oil or other geological resources, many many $ are invested with the trust that geologists know what they are talking about. Heck, everything radioactive, from the A-bomb to nuclear power-plants use the same basic assumptions.
Yet you believe they are wrong by a factor of about 500 000. To give you perspective, that's exactly like saying "you know, those astronomers use false assumptions when they make their calculations. The moon is no more than 30 inches or so from the earth."
I can't believe you waste your time debating evolution when it's clear that, any moment now, a nuclear power-plant is going to blow up and take out an entire continent.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Talkorigins.org is biased for evolution, if we can't quote Answersingenesis.org because it is biased to the truth (I had to say that), or bias to creation, then we can't reference talkorigins.org as well.
No-one's stopping you from using AiG. I'll simply sigh - then read the referenced article and criticize it. That's how it goes.
Still, I don't think the comparison is valid. Talkorigins is relaying the mainstream scientific explanations, always giving links to peer-reviewed works to support its assertions. It also comes recommended by various scientific establishments, such as the Scientific American periodical and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Nature), and is used as a teaching resource by various well-known universities and colleges (link).
On the other hand, you have a website whose "statement of faith" (no such thing in talkorigins ) contains this gem:
Quote:
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
(link) By definition? This quote alone is enough to ridicule any possible claim that AiG is remotely scientific. Do you realize that even if all the evidence were against them (which it is), they'd still be arguing against evolution? No such bias in science, thanks to the scientific method and peer-review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Try to find someone that is not biased towards evolution, and quote them.
Remember that, today, evolution is the scientific theory to explain life's diversity. So you're asking me to provide you with a website that is unbiased between science and crookery. That would not be a good source.
Roxolon, you do not need to create another thread, we have plenty on the subject. You also, are not looking at the definitions close enogh.
Vestigial does not mean "useless", rather something that was left over from some evolutionary past. I did not say the hip bones in the whale were useless, I said they were not vestigial. Meaning there is no evidence they had legs attached to them in the past. The hip bones are infact important anchor locations for muscles.
I do not think that the dates given by isotopic dating give older dates. In fact the dating methods often give much younger dates then the Uniformatarian time scale requires. That is why these number have to be jived to fit. I think that the scale (Uniformatarian time scale) that the isotopes are plotted on is incorrect. There are many issues with isotopic dating that the lists for the reasons against there acuracy goes into pages and pages. Suffice it to say that the past is the past and beyond what we know for certain is all guess work.
Just wanted to give a better definition of vestigial.
"A vestigial character is reduced and rudimentary compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. The most extreme test for vestigiality is to remove the character and observe the organism's viability and reproductive success. If these remain unchanged, the character is definitively vestigial. However, vestigial characters can certainly have functions; non-functionality is not a requirement." 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Glossary
See, you are ignorant in these matters, willfully so, pridefull in your ignorance. You don't even look at all the fossils. It scares you. You remind me of a kid on a geologic field trip that didn't want to look at a fossiliferous limestone outcrop because she believed fossils were planted like the Devil. Pride in her ignorance. I provided a short list of clear transitionals, and you don't know what to do with it. Fossils of species exhibiting characteristics that are clearly transitional, such as a (bird-like) creature with a boney tail and teeth-like structures (non-bird characteristics) - exactly how you, yourself, define a what a transitional would look like. But you base your entire view of fossil evidence on National Geographic's report on Archeaoraptor, out of hand.
Bingo, I nailed it. Like I said I was there. I also nailed where you are coming from and why you hold on to this false doctrine so hard inspite of any evidence presented. Yeah, I did that too.
Hey, where are the scientific studies that show that the hole drilled to hell was a hoax? I am sure if it was a hoax, you could easily point to the scientific studies showing unequivically that it was indeed a hoax.
Your transionals can only be assumed to be such. And it's obvious they are not imbraced by all to be transionals. I see them as a species that is nolonger with us, yet I donot try to make them into something they are not. And to do so, requires a very active imagination.
The hole to Hell has little to do with Biblical truth, and if that is the best example you can come up with to attack the Bible, I would suggest you try a little harder. Please do not waste our time with nonsense. And your example of someone who thinks fossils were planted by the Devil is equally nonsensical. And your list of transionals is based on assumption only. And if you want to convince me of such a transional. Then show me a transional from start to finish. Show us 10 or 15 fossils, that would demonstrate for us the progression of one species that has evoloved into another. Don't come here with one species, and ask us to believe that once upon a time it was something else. Show us a series of fossils that would clearly demonstrate such a progression. And please, no fake artistic pictures.
I wouldn't waste my time panterra. He has been shown many, many transitionals and always dismisses them. There is nothing you could show him that he would accept. He is too well programed to believe anything that conflicts with that programming.
Your transionals can only be assumed to be such. And it's obvious they are not imbraced by all to be transionals. I see them as a species that is nolonger with us, yet I donot try to make them into something they are not. And to do so, requires a very active imagination.
I repeat: what, then, would you consider a "transitional fossil showing evolution in action" to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
And your list of transionals is based on assumption only. And if you want to convince me of such a transional. Then show me a transional from start to finish. Show us 10 or 15 fossils, that would demonstrate for us the progression of one species that has evoloved into another. Don't come here with one species, and ask us to believe that once upon a time it was something else. Show us a series of fossils that would clearly demonstrate such a progression. And please, no fake artistic pictures.
And yet the whale fossils that I presented did not convince you. Even though one could clearly see the various whale features at different stages of development.
Ah, but maybe 6 "steps" aren't enough for you? Would you perhaps prefer the famous horse sequence (which includes rhinos)?
Quote:
So here's the summary of the horse sequence. For more info, see the Horse Evolution FAQ.
Loxolophus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive condylarth with rather low-crowned molars, probably ancestral to the phenacodontid condylarths.
Tetraclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A more advanced Paleocene condylarth from the phenacodontid family, and almost certainly ancestral to all the perissodactyls (a different order). Long but unspecialized limbs; 5 toes on each foot (#1 and #5 smaller). Slightly more efficient wrist.
GAP: There are almost no known perissodactyl fossils from the late Paleocene. This is actually a small gap; it's only noticeable because the perissodactyl record is otherwise very complete. Recent discoveries have made clear that the first perissodactyls arose in Asia (a poorly studied continent), so hopefully the ongoing new fossil hunts in Asia will fill this small but frustrating gap. The first clue has already come in:
Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)
Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.
Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.
Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.
Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.
Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.
'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.
Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.
Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus. The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines". Crystal clear, right?
SMALL GAP: It is not known which Merychippus species (stylodontus? carrizoensis?) gave rise to the first Dinohippus species (Evander, in Prothero & S 1988).
Dinohippus (late Miocene, 12 Ma) -- One-toed grazer, spring-footed. Very equine feet, teeth, and skull, with straighter teeth & smaller fossae. First was D. spectans, followed by D. interpolatus and D. leidyanus. A slightly later species was D. mexicanus, with even straighter teeth and even smaller fossae.
Equus (Plesippus), also called the "E. simplicidens" group (Pliocene, ~4 My) -- Three closely related species of one-toed spring-footed high-crowned grazers. No fossae and very straight teeth. Pony size, fully "horsey" body -- rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw. The brain was a bit larger than in early Dinohippus. Still had some primitive traits such as simple teeth & slight facial fossae, which later Equus species lost. These "simple Equus" species quickly diversified into at least 12 new species in 4 different groups. During the first major glaciations of the late Pliocene (2.6 Ma), certain Equus species crossed to the Old World. Worldwide, Equus took over the niche of "large coarse-grazing plains runner".
Equus (Hippotigris) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Compare Equus to Hyracotherium and see how much it has changed. If you think of animals as being divided into "kinds", do you think Equus and Hyracotherium can be considered the same "kind"? Tapirs and rhinos:
Loxolophus, see above
Tetraclaenodon, see above
Homagalax (early Eocene) -- Very like its sister genus Hyracotherium, but had cross-lophs on teeth. Note that these early perissodactyls differed only in slight details of the teeth.
Heptodon (late early Eocene) -- A small early tapiroid showing one more tooth cusp change. Split into two lineages:
Helaletes (mid-Eocene) which had a short proboscis, then Prototapir (late Oligocene), much like modern tapirs but without such a flexible snout, then Miotapirus (early Miocene), an almost- modern tapir with a flexible snout, then Tapirus (Pliocene) the modern tapir.
Hyrachyus (late Eocene), a tapiroid with increased shearing function in its teeth. Led to the late Eocene hyracodontids such as Hyracodon (rhino-tapiroids, or "running rhinos") that show increasing development of high-crowned teeth and larger body size. They led to Caenopus (early Oligocene), a large, hornless, generalized rhino which led to the modern horned rhinos of the Miocene & Pliocene. Our living genera first appear in the Pliocene, about 4 Ma.
Species-species transitions:
Horses: Gingerich (1980) documented speciation from Hyracotherium grangeri to H. aemulor. Prothero & Schoch (1989) mention some intermediate fossils that link late Orohippus to Mesohippus celer. MacFadden (1985) has documented numerous smooth transitions among the three-toed horses, particularly among Merychippus and the various hipparions. Hulbert (in Prothero & Schoch, 1989) showed that Dinohippus smoothly grades into Equus through successive Pliocene strata. Simpson (1961) describes gradual loss of the side toes in Pliohippus through 3 successive strata of the early Pliocene.
Rhinos: Wood (1954) said of the rhino fossils "whenever we do have positive paleontological evidence, the picture is of the most extreme gradualism" (quoted in Gingerich, 1977), and Kurten (1968) describes a smooth transition between Dicerorhinus species.
(Source and references. Pictures are available all over the internet.)
I wouldn't waste my time panterra. He has been shown many, many transitionals and always dismisses them. There is nothing you could show him that he would accept. He is too well programed to believe anything that conflicts with that programming.
I repeat: what, then, would you consider a "transitional fossil showing evolution in action" to be?
And yet the whale fossils that I presented did not convince you. Even though one could clearly see the various whale features at different stages of development.
Ah, but maybe 6 "steps" aren't enough for you? Would you perhaps prefer the famous horse sequence (which includes rhinos)?
(Source and references. Pictures are available all over the internet.)
Don't show me one fossil, and expect me to believe that once upon a time it was something else. Show me a number of fossils that would show us a clear progression of one species that has evolved into another. Show me perhaps 10 or 15 fossils that we could place next to each other. And we could then follow how evolution took that one species and slowly evolved it into another. I don't want to see the famous horse sequence. I want to see a four legged land animal, evolve into a whale. Or something similar. Another words, one species evolving into an entirely different species.
Of course to my knowledge nothing like this exists, so we are always being shown one fossil they call a transional, and then they tell us we have to fill in the blank ourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) contains this gem:
Shh, don't give him more fossils until he provides a better definition! You know he'll move the goalposts otherwise.
