The Origin of Novelty

Is this going to be one of those threads where a creationist has the evolutionists try to prove evolution to them while they do everything they can to avoid accepting it? One where no amount of evidence is ever going to matter and its just a game for you by having a bunch of people taking shots that you get to waste our time defending yourself against? Because if it is, then I don't want to play. But lets see.Here's a picture showing various possible stages of the evolution of the eye: Light sensitive cells can help primitive species avoid danger and move towards food, obvious advantages. The other various developments build on those and make them more advantageous. What kinds of things would you like to learn about that?

Ha! That was the other picture I was considering linking to. And I chose the one I did because it was more general.

Honestly: wasting my time.Good day, sir.

But you've never replied back... No, they're all based in reality. Mutation. Mutations don't just lead to loss of information, they can add to it too. Dublication, Insertion... stuff like that.

Are you sure about that? How does God create animals without some process that adds complexity?Animals are complex, even if the process is magically poofing them into existence, it still adds complexity.

Dude, sharks don't even have bones.

From my Message 6:

quote:

---

Is this going to be one of those threads where a creationist has the evolutionists try to prove evolution to them while they do everything they can to avoid accepting it? One where no amount of evidence is ever going to matter and its just a game for you by having a bunch of people taking shots that you get to waste our time defending yourself against? Because if it is, then I don't want to play. But lets see.

---

You sure?

quote:

---

Onychonycteris is the most primitive of the two oldest known monospecific genera of bat, having lived in the area that is current day Wyoming during the Eocene period, 52.5 million years ago.wiki

---

quote:

---

Palaeochiropteryx...

​

They are one of the oldest bats known, existing around 48 million years ago.wiki

---

. Have you looked into horses? Whales is another good one:

Which "first bat fossil"? The one JonF linked to in Message 762?Because that one *is* a fossil of Onychonycteris. And its dated to ~52.5 mya. As far as I'm aware, it is the oldest bat found. Yeah, that's not what's being done here, you're misunderstanding the point of the diagrams. They're not saying that those species shown are definately directly related to each other, but I can see how you would get that impression. Sometimes transitional fossils are used in diagrams to show how the ancestral species may have looked, but they're not supposed to be implying that they are certainly related. Right, yeah, and they're not supposed to conclude anything. But take a look at their similarities and their ages:If you were to pick up all those fossils and arrange them by similarities, then you could group them in the order they are shown. And then if you date them, you'll find that they line up in the order from oldest to youngest! Or lets say you take them and line them up by age, then you'll find that they also line up by similarities! You can independently get the same ordering by grouping them by both similarities *AND* age!What we are looking at is a particular set of facts. Fossils line up by similarity and age. What we are trying to do is propose a mechanism for these observed facts.So, how do you think that could happen? One possible explanation is outlined with the Theory of Evolution. The facts we have are consistent with the theory and the model offers an explanatory mechanism. These fossils aren't about proving it, it's about recognizing that the explanation does work.Regarding creationism, I don't have any reason for supposing that God created all those creatures in a way that they could be grouped independently by both similarity and age... unless God's creative process was something that looks like the mechanism outlined in the Theory of Evolution. Either way, the animals... they're evolving. Thems the facts. And we don't have a better explanation than the Theory of Evolution.

Um, its one fossil, and its known from fragmentary remains. What's this about significant evolutionary change? How do you know? Whoa, whoa, whoa... That's not the same thing. You can't just put a seal in between a manatee and a goat and act like you're looking at a transitional species.It has to have features from both before it and after it. Its not as easy as you're making it out to be. No, you're not understanding this. Actual real transitional fossils... grouped by traits... line up by age. They're not meaningless arrangements.What is the explanation of it? Don't try to downplay the importance, consider why we are seeing this stuff... Escuse me? How does a fully intact form suddenly appear?You do know how babies are made, right? Daddy fertilizes mommy and the baby grows inside her until it is born. Nothing ever just appears fully formed, that's nonsense.Seriously, look at what you're saying: "What if animals just magically poofed into existence?" I mean, really?, is that what we are to be considering? Then there'd be no reason for the transition features to line up by age. But they do. Why?

Neither of those statements are true, nor have you supplied evidence to suggest them.Just because the oldest bat that we have found could fly doesn't mean that there were not earlier more primitave bats that they evolved from. Also, the oldest bat that we've found isn't necesarily the "first" bat to exist.We haven't even looked at the significance of the evolutionary change yet. No, that's not true. We know the fossils are transitional because of the features they have. A seal doesn't have features between a manatee and a goat. No, it isn't. You're displaying a lack of understanding of what constitutes a transitional fossil. It doesn't work like you're saying. That's a lie. Do you *NOT* understand where babies come from? Animals come from other animals. There's no such thing as a "unique" animal. The pictures I linked to in Message 768. We have a bunch of transitional fossils. When you group them by their traits, they line up by their age.Why do you suppose that is? The Theory of Evolution offers a plausible explanation. I've seen no other. No, it shows no such thing. But we know that animals don't magically poof into existence but instead are born from other animals. Surely this is basic stuff here. How can you not understand how babies are made? Fossils are rare. The record is incomplete. The holes in the fossil record do not suggest that the animals magically poofed into existence. I'm sorry but that's just silly. Okay, again, we have a bunch of transitional fossils that can be independently grouped by their traits and their ages.What is the explanation for that? Is it better than the explanation that follows from the Theory of Evolution? Anything that involves magic is automatically 100 time worse. That's bullshit. You're not addressing the evidence, you're trying to hand-wave it away. Gawsh, its like the animals have been evolving! Again, you're not understanding how tranistional fossils work.You cannot put a seal between a manatee and a goat and say its transitional to them. Until you understand how that differs from identifying transitional fossils we will be unable to proceed.

Okay, I just stumbled across this through a bump, from Message 89. Its another great example of transitional fossils: Holy shit! If we arrange those fossils according to their age, its almost like we can see the transitions between the different forms.Now, we now know that this is not a claim of definate ancestry. And that we should expect that there are various forms in a given time period.Here's the important question: why should we expect those forms that we've found to align both by shape and also timeline?Where's the explanation for the pattern?If you want to doubt the pattern, where's the other fossils that we've found that break it?

Great post, Granny. Hey, when you get those images with the "clear" backgrounds, its a lot easier to see them if you use the blockcolor dBCode to make the background white instead of blue. Like this: I used [blockcolor=white][thumb]http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif[/thumb][/blockcolor]

Its Sphenisciformes and Struthioniformes all the way down.