Posted on 11/07/2014 2:43:53 PM PST by Alter Kaker
Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs, evolved from terrestrial creatures that made their way back into the water over time.
But the fossil record for the lineage has been spotty, without a clear link between land-based reptiles and the aquatic ichthyosaurs scientists know came after. Now, researchers report in Nature that they've found that link — an amphibious ancestor of the swimming ichthyosaurs named Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.
"Many creationists have tried to portray ichthyosaurs as being contrary to evolution," said lead author Ryosuke Motani, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California Davis. "We knew based on their bone structure that they were reptiles, and that their ancestors lived on land at some time, but they were fully adapted to life in the water. So creationists would say, well, they couldn't have evolved from those reptiles, because where's the link?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The trouble with these origins debates is that seldom is any consideration given to the difference between observational and historical science.
Evolutionists always finds what they want to find...
It isn’t a problem for them, because they don’t care. At this point, they don’t have any significant political/academic power. The hard liners don’t care.
There are many, but here's one from Wikipedia.
One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[19] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.
Sometimes those on the long-ages side of the ledger point to the Texas blind salamander. The problems there are twofold: 1) he has lost a complex organ rather than gained; and 2) the eyes eventually come back in subsequent generatiins raised in captivity (with presence of light).
Not a valid point in genetic science. Human children share the same genome as their human parents by definition - since they are in the same species.
I put the word fertile in my question for a purpose. In my question the newly evolved offspring has to produce viable gametes, and those gametes have to find a compatible gamete. IF ya don’t share the same genome, (ie in the same species) ya ain’t gonna produce viable offspring or fertile offspring.
In the classic example ‘we evolved from chimps’ - there are key chromosomal differences between humans and chimps (different species) that reliably preclude fertilization/implantation and the growth of a viable embryo - let alone produce a fertile offspring.
Demonstrable, reliable speciation by evolution is a key missing link in the modern model of evolution. Darwin thought he saw it in the phenotype. We can’t make it work in the genotype.
So lets go with your argument for a bit. By pure chance, ONE human offspring evolved in the moment of fertilization in a chimpanzee - a new, unique zygote. Then that weird offspring was not rejected by its parents, grew to the age of sexual maturity and by some amazing mathematical and genetic coincidence, ANOTHER human was born in the same geography and time span, with the exact same random recombined DNA and chromosomal structure, and managed to find human #1, mate and produce a viable population (without God’s help).
Yeeaaah, I can go with that.
Jim - please cite examples of speciation at the genetic level, not phenotype.
I for one have never read a reliable publication that “observed speciation.” Darwin thought he did, but he had no idea what an allele is for instance. It ain’t speciation unless it’s really in the genes.
There was also a study of some moth or butterfly in , I think England, during the industrial revolution.
It was mostly gray with some black but as the years went by and coal soot covered cities it’s coloration changed to mostly black with only small gray areas.
Umm, flies switching food supplies is not significant change.
More like the fly turning into something completely different, like a spider or something radically different.
You know, a real CHANGE, not changing diet.
Red herring. We didn't evolve from chimps.
Human children share the same genome as their human parents by definition - since they are in the same species.
That's because you need to look at the larger picture. The genetic differences between any one generation and the next are small. However after, say, 10,000 generations, there may be significant differences. Speciation occurs when you have two populations that are reproductively isolated. Look at bonobos and chimpanzees, closely related, but evolving differently after being separated from each other by the Congo River (which they're afraid to cross).
There was also a study of some moth or butterfly in , I think England, during the industrial revolution.
It was mostly gray with some black but as the years went by and coal soot covered cities it’s coloration changed to mostly black with only small gray areas.
Try reading again. They're not just switching food supplies, they've switched numbers of chromosomes, etc.
More like the fly turning into something completely different, like a spider or something radically different.
We've observed larger changes genetically and in the fossil record, but it's silly to expect us to observe something in the lab that takes lots of time. That doesn't mean we can't prove that it happened.
“It’s the Helen Thomas replacement.”
It’s been said Helen Thomas has a new existence in hell . . . as the sexy face of the 72 virgins for her Islamic terrorist buddies.
But I heard recently she’s still a virgin.
have you ever read the origin of species?
I would advise reading darwin’s words rather than commentary
then, observe for your self. Buy a good wild flower book. a good choice would be one of the Peterson’s Guides to wild flowers. then take it into the field and actually observe the possible wide variation that occurs within a single species and then the differences that are present within different species within a genus.
the mechanism of natural selection produces species
Would appear to be natural selection.
As the cities got darker the lighter color bugs were picked off by predators allowing the darker ones to reproduce and strengthen their “blood line” and darken the species.
After enough gene expression you end up with something totally different that what you started with.
After enough gene expression you end up with something totally different that what you started with.
But where is the fossil evidence? Fossils are as common as mud, and the fossil record shows stasis in species, overwhelmingly.
Time, it all takes time.
More time than we have.
prove it
and not with some made up fable that relates men to salamanders, either...
Human Children share enough of the same key genome as their parents to be compatible with other humans. Although cases such as Darwin’s Finches aren’t as dramatic as the ape to human speciation, as there. Overall, I have found a lot of things explained in today’s world to be highly improbable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.