Evolution: If It Walks Like a Fish ...

Newsweek ^ | 17 April 2006 issue | Jerry Adler

[Filo]

Why don't we see this today? If there are "transitional" species, why wouldn't we see at least one fish today give birth to a fish with elbows in 2006?

Which brings up the next question...even if one species can create another species (which I believe has never happend yet), how is that new species supposed to propagate? After all...it's the first and only one of it's kind...it can't breed with anything else, right?

Sure, I know I'm told that this is a process that happens over millions of years. But that brings up another question. Since the world is supposedly millions of years old, we should be seeing this at least once or twice from processes that began millions of years ago?

Or does evolution only happen when we aren't watching?

I hate quoting an entire post, but. . .

All this drivel accomplished is to prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None at all. Not even a glimmer.

That's pretty much the problem between ID and Evolution in a nutshell. One side throws facts, information, science, numbers - in short - proof at the other in piles bigger than the other side can even grasp and they fling back poo.

It's all wasted time on both sides.

[samtheman]

Those are good (all your links are good) but I actually think that what I read might have been a long post by you. Did you write something yourself on the subject of retroviruses and the marks they leave in the genetic sequence? One of the points was that there is no overlap in the inherited "junk" deposited by retroviruses. Does that ring a bell?

[Coyoteman]

"OK, if that's the case, draw a diving line in the photograph below."

Human as well as ape skulls have different shapes and sizes. Based on those variations, it's easy to form a progression like the one displayed in your photo using old degrated skulls dug from the ground to form a desired result. Many of those skulls are so degrated from calcium buildup, etc., even evolutionary scientists have disagreed on whether or not they should be labeled as missing links, or simply skulls that belong to a known species that are unrecognizable due to decay.

My question to you was to draw a dividing line between human and non-human, as you had claimed in post #23 that "Humans are unique, and unrelated to any other species."

Your answer about the condition of fossil skulls did not answer the question, nor is it entirely correct. Many of the fossils are in quite good shape. Did you know that some of the teeth can be used to make microcasts, which can then be examined under an electron microscope to detect tiny wear patterns and scratches--leading to a reconstruction of diet? You can't do that with skulls in the shape you are imagining them to be. [Have you ever worked with the casts of any of these fossils?]

So, if humans are unrelated to any other species, what is #I in the photograph of my post #38--Homo heidelbergensis? Human or ape?

How about the individual below? Human or ape?

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[jec41]

Nitpiks aside.....many if not most Athiests rely on science to support their belief.

Nitpiks aside.....many if not most Atheists rely on science to support their observation of material facts, evidence and empirical evidence of the facts and a explanation of the facts. Beliefs are not observed by science and are neither supported or not supported by science.

[bobdsmith]

Neanderthal man was originally though to be our closest relative in the evolutionary chain, only to find that human DNA was dissimilar. Human's are definitely unique.

We are over 99% genetically similar to neandertal

[fizziwig]

"Nitpiks aside.....many if not most Atheists rely on science to support their observation of material facts, evidence and empirical evidence of the facts and a explanation of the facts. Beliefs are not observed by science and are neither supported or not supported by science."
__________________________________

And these athiests believe that these observations of "material facts and emperical evidence of these facts" support their contention that there is no God.

Athiesm is a belief....or call it an assertion, or contention, or argument, or whatever, it amounts to the same thing. Richard Dawkins, for example, contends that the evidence we get from scientific observations and analysis support his contention that there is no God.

[Stultis]

My original question was asking for an example of speciation with a chromosome count difference. In all of the noise, this has not been answered.

Yes it was. It was pointed out to you, for instance, that the various species of horses (family Equidae) almost all have differing chromosome numbers, and even creationists agree nearly universally that the living Equides are related by descent. Indeed this is the example most frequently offered by creationists of variation within a single "created kind".

Oh, btw, how about an example of many different chromsome numbers within a SINGLE SPECIES, indeed withing a single SUBspecies, occupying a single geographic region? Would settle the issue? I give you the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) of Northern Italy, in which a wide variety of chromosomal races are known:

Chromosomal Heterozygosity and Fertility in House Mice (Mus musculus domesticus) From Northern Italy
Genetics, Vol. 150, 1143-1154, November 1998
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/3/1143

[DennisR]

"Or does evolution only happen when we aren't watching?"

Bingo!

[PatrickHenry]

Did you write something yourself on the subject of retroviruses and the marks they leave in the genetic sequence? One of the points was that there is no overlap in the inherited "junk" deposited by retroviruses. Does that ring a bell?

Probably you're thinking of a post by Ichneumon. It's likely this one: Ichneumon's legendary post 52.

[null and void]

Note that two parents with differing chromosome count can have fertile offspring. It's rare but it happens. Mules are an example.

Is this a bad time to point out that mules are sterile?

(Or are there occasionally mules capable of reproduction?)

[jec41]

Athiesm is a belief....or call it an assertion, or contention, or argument, or whatever, it amounts to the same thing. Richard Dawkins, for example, contends that the evidence we get from scientific observations and analysis support his contention that there is no God.

Could you give me a contention of Richard Dawkins stating this?

[fizziwig]

"Could you give me a contention of Richard Dawkins stating this?"

_______________________________________________

How about a whole book instead?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml

[norwaypinesavage]

"Norway is just fishing for some easy way to shoot down common descent."

Not really, I am merely seeking information. I am not an expert in biology. I am an engineer and a statistician. It is my observation that the current rate of random evolution does not explain the wide range of biological diversity we have today. I have never seen an explanation how evolution accounts for such a large variety of species in the world today, with such a large variety of chromosome and gene counts (in spite of "speciation") most of which cannot cross breed. I am seeking informed opinion. For those of you only wishing to criticize, don't bother.

[jec41]

Athiesm is a belief....or call it an assertion, or contention, or argument, or whatever, it amounts to the same thing. Richard Dawkins, for example, contends that the evidence we get from scientific observations and analysis support his contention that there is no God.

That evolution does not support design is the statement it has not been observed by science. Science having not observed the fact of design is not the same as the contention above. Science does not support Atheism either. It has no method to do either. Many before Darwin who opined a belief in evolution by observation were minsters but had a belief in creation.

[Gumlegs]

There is plenty of informed opinion right here on FR.

[knarf]

Funny ... I forgot the quotation marks ... I expected too much, I suppose.

[samtheman]

Ah, that's the one! Brilliant!

Thanks for that and everything you do.

[js1138]

It is my observation that the current rate of random evolution does not explain the wide range of biological diversity we have today.

That's odd, because Darwin was able, in the 1850s, to calculate a reasonable number for the age of the earth based on the observed rate of variation. Darwin's estimate was the best available until radioactive decay was discovered. This is an excellent way to remove the claim of bias, because Darwin's age of the earth was considered impossible by the physicists of his time. You can be certain he was not starting with someone else's number and fudging his calculation to fit.

Every estimate done since confirms that the observed rate of variation is a good match for the time available.

Math is only useful if you plug the correct numbers into your formulas. Perhaps you would share your calculations with us.

[Quark2005]

Not really, I am merely seeking information.

Letting you know first (up front) that I am thoroughly convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory, the most complete source of info on the subject on the internet is TalkOrigins, if you want what mainstream science has to offer on the subject. (Many creationists openly refer to this site as "propaganda" - you'll make up your own mind, of course.)

[PatrickHenry]

100