Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

quote:

---

Fossilization requires a quick burial- that goes against gradualism.

---

To quote Jon Stewart: "Whaaaaaaaaa?"Please explain.

quote:

---

It also shoots down how we date the GC.

---

Again, explanation needed. Keep in mind that "quick burial" means a few to a few hundred years (depending on the environment), not "3 seconds". It just has to occur before the fossil bones get eroded/decomposed to pieces and turn into bone dust.

quote:

---

The only reason to believe a dinos forelimbs evolved into wings is faith. There isn't any evidence to support that claim- but if you can show me to be wrong I will look into it.

---

You mean, there aren't intermediates to forelimbs as wings? Such as, oh let's just say, flying squirrels which use their forelimbs to glide while leaping? Please present your barrier.The fossil record also backs us up here, with fossils such as archaeopteryx (among others).P.S. - have you ever looked at a bat's skeleton? Try and claim that these aren't just elongated arms and fingers:------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

Or look in my Wright Brothers Anniversary Thread; notice the pterosaur, bird, and bat have their front limbs modified into wings. I looked for some nice bird skeletons, and I could find some chicken and pigeon skeletons -- and this diagram:

It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution. If bat's wings were just elongated arms/ fingers then it would be a given that the genes that govern the limbs/ fingers were what mutated. What happens if embryology falsifies that notion? BTW, homolgy has been falsified for years.Look up fossilization. If an organism isn't buried within 2 years tops it will not fossilize, it will deteriorate. Trace fossils left on the surface will erode.Flying squirrels glide, they don't fly. A variation of a regular squirrel. No big deal.

John Paul:
It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution.Like what would you consider acceptable evidence? Following the generations in a time machine?If bat's wings were just elongated arms/ fingers then it would be a given that the genes that govern the limbs/ fingers were what mutated.I actually agree with that. In fact, there is a paper that addresses exactly this question: Comparative studies on limb morphogenesis in mice and bats: a functional genetic approach towards a molecular understanding of diversity in organ formationIn effect, that paper's authors want to find out what makes a bat's front-limb digits grow much more than a mouse's.What happens if embryology falsifies that notion?It would be a big surprise -- and the authors of the above paper find no evidence of that.BTW, homolgy has been falsified for years.How so?Look up fossilization. If an organism isn't buried within 2 years tops it will not fossilize, it will deteriorate. Trace fossils left on the surface will erode.On land, maybe. But not underwater, where it can become buried by sediment. In fact, fossils are forming right now.Flying squirrels glide, they don't fly. A variation of a regular squirrel. No big deal.John Paul, are you claiming that you consider "flying" squirrels to be descended from nonflying/nongliding ones? I really want to know what's your position on that subject.

quote:

---

It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution.

---

Ever heard of Icarnycteris (thanks for the pic, lpetrich!)

quote:

---

If bat's wings were just elongated arms/ fingers then it would be a given that the genes that govern the limbs/ fingers were what mutated. What happens if embryology falsifies that notion?

---

Here's their physical structureHey, Mammuthus, do you have a link on the genetics for this one? I got the morphology taken care of!

quote:

---

BTW, homolgy has been falsified for years.

---

You've said this at least four times now, and not backed it up once. I don't appreciate that sort of thing. Back it up now, or quit saying it.

quote:

---

Look up fossilization. If an organism isn't buried within 2 years tops it will not fossilize, it will deteriorate. Trace fossils left on the surface will erode.

---

I'm growing tired of your incorrect assertions. The type of fossilization being discussed here is called permineralization (for more about fossilization, read). Perimineralization can occur on fossils that have been exposed for more than 100 years. Now, please, quit asserting on subjects that you know nothing about.

quote:

---

Flying squirrels glide, they don't fly. A variation of a regular squirrel. No big deal.

---

I'll ask again: Where's the barrier? How many times do I have to ask this? You're asserting that there's a barrier; every time that I ask what it is, you ignore my question. Don't ignore it this time: what supposedly will prevent gradualism from continuing? Without a barrier, and with continual selective pressure, gradualism is guaranteed to continue, so you better have one if you want your position to be tenable.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

John Paul:
It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution.LP:
Like what would you consider acceptable evidence? Following the generations in a time machine?John Paul:
There isn't any evidence for the alleged bat evolution in the fossil record. Period. Bats appear fully formed- very similar to modern day bats.
The link you provide only shows the abstract. I know better than to place any weight on an abstract alone.http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.aspOn fossilization- I should have been more clear. I was talking about land organisms.On squirrels- I haven't given it much thought but given the fact that we see humans born with webbed fingers and toes AND they are still human, I don't see the big deal in a flap of skin forming between limbs. However now I may look into it a little deeper.

I can't help it that you don't understand the concept that limits exist in all facets of life. YOU have provided no eviodence that limits don't also apply to life itself. I am sick of asking YOU for that evidence. Just saying mutations can accumulate mena nothing without the evidence to back it up.As for homology I told you- Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Don't blame me for your laziness to read the evidence that disputes your theory.Icarnycteris is a bat. What's your point? I never said bats weren't found in the fossil record, I said their alleged evolution isn't evidenced in the fossil record.

Limits exist. Great. Knowing that oceans exist doesn't prove that there's one between New York and St. Louis.You need to specifically prove that there's a specific limit right where you say it is. Now, we've observed lots of mutation. We've never observed any limit that would prevent speciation or evolution.We're looking where you say the limit should be, and we can't find it. What more evidence do you think we need to conclude that it isn't there?A hand-waving metaphor isn't going to cut it. The existence of limits in biology, as a general principle, is insufficient to prove the existence of a limit right where you'd like it to be. (And I know you'd so love there to be a limit, I just know you would, but wishing doesn't make it so...)

crashfrog, We Have NEVER observed mutations accumulating in the way the theory of evolution requires. Genetic homeostasis- the observed limit. Also we know that even the most beneficial mutation has a greater chance of being lost in a population than it does of becoming fixed, never mind taking over that population. Sexual reproduction is the bane of the theory. Throw away half of the genes to reproduce? Not a good thing for you.YOU have not provided any evidence that m utations can accumulate. Don't accuse me of assertions when I am just following your lead.

What way do you think the ToE requires mutations to accumulate? In what way is that different, in your belief, than the way we observe mutations accumulate? A great thing. There's a bazillion studies about how sexual reproduction is great for populations. And consider the example of genetic programmers. One thing every evolutionary algorhythm models is sexual recombination. Why would that be if it wasn't evolutionarily advantageous?

quote:

---

Genetics. 2000 Dec;156(4):1913-31. Related Articles, Links

​

The population genetics of the origin and divergence of the Drosophila simulans complex species.

​

Kliman RM, Andolfatto P, Coyne JA, Depaulis F, Kreitman M, Berry AJ, McCarter J, Wakeley J, Hey J.

​

Department of Genetics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8082, USA.

​

The origins and divergence of Drosophila simulans and close relatives D. mauritiana and D. sechellia were examined using the patterns of DNA sequence variation found within and between species at 14 different genes. D. sechellia consistently revealed low levels of polymorphism, and genes from D. sechellia have accumulated mutations at a rate that is approximately 50% higher than the same genes from D. simulans. At synonymous sites, D. sechellia has experienced a significant excess of unpreferred codon substitutions. Together these observations suggest that D. sechellia has had a reduced effective population size for some time, and that it is accumulating slightly deleterious mutations as a result. D. simulans and D. mauritiana are both highly polymorphic and the two species share many polymorphisms, probably since the time of common ancestry. A simple isolation speciation model, with zero gene flow following incipient species separation, was fitted to both the simulans/mauritiana divergence and the simulans/sechellia divergence. In both cases the model fit the data quite well, and the analyses revealed little evidence of gene flow between the species. The exception is one gene copy at one locus in D. sechellia, which closely resembled other D. simulans sequences. The overall picture is of two allopatric speciation events that occurred quite near one another in time.

​

PMID: 11102384 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---

Wow flies evolving into flies? LOL! By random mutation or by design?What way do we observe mutations accumulating?Sexual reproduction- where do I start? evolutionists can only offer assertions as to how that came about. Even Dawkins recognizes the difficulties it presents.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-17-2003]

Two species of flies, looks like. I'd tell you if they were two different kinds of flies if you'd only tell me what a kind is. (I notice you still haven't done that.) By keeping track of genomes. Mutation is the process of new genetic codes being inserted into a gene pool. If you detect a sequence that wasn't there before, that's a mutation. Why do I have to tell you this? I assumed it would be obvious. And yet, every population geneticist recognizes the great evolutionary advantage.

John Paul:
On fossilization- I should have been more clear. I was talking about land organisms.However, they can die in bodies of water. And plants' leaves can be blown by wind to water. Try taking Taphonomy 101. Jonathan Wells's homology article.Which is full of misunderstandings and perhaps even misrepresentations. Hox genes do NOT specify antennae or legs or wings; they control other genes that make these appendages.As to similar larvae -> different adults, so what? All that means is that post-larval development goes in different directions. Also, so what about indirect vs. direct development in close species? That only means that the indirect-developer larval phase was exited while inside the egg in the direct developers.Also, some 1971 book is far from the last word in the genetics of development; Gavin de Beer had been speculating that homologous features can be produced by non-homologous genes. But a lot has been learned in the 32 years since, and that speculation is totally unsupported.He makes a big issue out of variations in recruitment of cells for forming various structures, but I do not see why that is such a big issue.And he stumbles over variations in ossification of cartilage -- it happens faster in some species than in others, and it can be variable.

John Paul, They are not accomodations, they are predictions. This is what Darwin meant by saying that if his theory were true, then intermediate organisms should be found (they weren't at that time). Such intermediate fossils have since been found, it is therefore a prediction borne out. Nonsense. Another creationist strawman. Modern uniformatarianism does NOT suggest that everything gets laid down particle by particle, it says the same things that affect the earth today did in the past. This means that volcanism, landslides & other catastrophes occurred. Hence there is no reason to believe that rapid burial couldn't occur. Moreover, rapid burial is not a necessary pre-condition of fossilisation. Preservation is. If toxic/anoxic environments can preserve an organism long enough for slow burial to occur, then fossilisation can occur.How the GC formed is utterly, utterly irrelevent to radiometric dating & other methods. Irrelevant, the point was raised to demonstrate your strawman that the ToE predicts half formed organisms. I never said it was, why do you think I did raise anything to support that claim? It isn't a claim I made in the first place. Again the point was to demonstrate that you argument was a strawman.Mark

John Paul, I think Rei understands perfectly that limits exist in life, what both Rei & I don't accept is that the limits that you assert to exist actually do. And you have provided no evidence that the limit you assert to exist does. I predict with some level of confidence that it is I that will get sick of you failing to provide evidence for the limit you assert to exist.Please provide the evidence that there is a limit to gradualistic change via RM&NS.Thus far your argument is based on a fallacy of composition & nothing more. Because I observe a limit to something, there must be an absolute limit, an insurpassable barrier that prevents all large scale morphological change.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall