Summations Only

But of course it is all done by microevolutionary steps ... because that is how macroevolution works -- by the accumulation of microevolutionary steps over many generations, a continuous process over time that results in offspring descendents that are noticeably different from the ancestors.These fossils show microevolutionary adaptations that each form a base for the next round of microevolutionary adaptations to build on until the full macroevolution of a new feature has occurred. Excellent example.But you knew that.Enjoy.

We have facts, that's what the fossils are, that is what the elements that provide the dating data have. These are not interpretations or assumptions, they are repeatably observable empirical evidence. No, you create a totally post hoc tortuous jamming of what you believe to fit around the facts. The same approach would apply if the evidence did not support evolution, in fact it would apply to any kind of evidence no matter what it was. Thus it does not explain the evidence.The question for you, the one you have not addressed, is why does the evidence fit the expected patterns of evolution completely without exception, from species to species and from era to era, ... the complete geological, geographical and biological pattern?When you ask: If sudden independent creation were the cause, then why are all the fossils located in time and space within walking distance of each other, instead of on the other side of the world?Eg - why are the various ancient hominid fossils found not just in Africa, but a specific area of Africa -- why not some in Asia and some in Australia and some in the Americas?Sudden independent creation, as a scientific hypothesis, should predict no relation in location or time for similar appearing fossils, because it has no mechanism to cause such a relationship. That is the one "test" that would show that it was valid in place of evolution, and that the evidence (epic) fails to fall in line with that prediction, should be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is false. IFF you want to approach things scientifically instead of by hand waving ...Or, as Dr A says, the evidence is an elaborate hoax created specifically to fool people into thinking a falsehood. God as Loki.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

A database of fossils arranged in time and space. The temporal\geographical relationship between fossils is probably more important than the individual bones, as that is what shows the trends in both time and location that would pertain if evolution were true and which would not pertain if evolution were false -- that is why every single fossil is a test of evolutionary theory.This is why archaeologists and paleontologists and geologists take such pains to document location, date, and the relationship of fossils to one another.Look up Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography and see why this is critical to understanding what the fossils mean within the matrix of time and space rather than just a collection of bones.Read The Song of the DodoBoth Wallace and Darwin noticed that whenever a new species was found, there was *always* a nearby (time or space) population of similar species, species with shared traits and different traits.This is why they both came to the same conclusion: that new species evolved from existing species.See Message 90All fossils are "specific fossils" and all fossils are "sudden appearances" of individual organisms within the matrix. It seems you think you mean something here, but in fact it is rather incoherent to understand. You will have to define what you mean by "completely new" -- before you were born you had not existed before and then you were a completely new - unique - creature upon birth. However we see inherited traits and we see derived traits in you compared to your parents. We also see a close relationship to the time and location of your parents existing and your birth.Enjoy

From New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo nalediHomo[/i] Discovered: Homo naledi, Faith, Message 152: There is information of this sequence of evolution that I have posted before, one resource is THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
by Lenny Flank (c) 1995:

quote:

---

... The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. ...

​

... In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). ...

​

Paleontologists point out that the therapsids possessed many of the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals:

​

"In many respect, the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 127)

​

... it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another, freeing up the rest of these bones to form the auditory ossicles in the mammalian middle ear. .... As Arthur N. Strahler puts it, "A transitional form must have had two joints in operation simultaneously (as in the modern rattlesnake), and this phase was followed by a fusion of the lower joint." (Strahler 1987, p. 414) ...

​

... it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian:

​

"Probainognathus, a small cynodont reptile from the Triassic sediments of Argentina, shows characters in the skull and jaws far advanced toward the mammalian condition. Thus it had teeth differentiated into incisors, a canine and postcanines, a double occipital condyle and a well-developed secondary palate, all features typical of the mammals, but most significantly the articulation between the skull and the lower jaw was on the very threshhold between the reptilian and mammalian condition. The two bones forming the articulation between skull and mandible in the reptiles, the quadrate and articular respectively, were still present but were very small, and loosely joined to the bones that constituted the mammalian joint . . . Therefore in Probainognathus there was a double articulation between skull and jaw, and of particular interest, the quadrate bone, so small and so loosely joined to the squamosal, was intimately articulated with the stapes bone of the middle ear. It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229)

​

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. ...

---

There are several other fossils that are in this lineage of transition detailed in the article. Please read the article to get the full transition description.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Again, evolution does not have a purpose or a goal, so there can be no errors, no deviations from some prescribed path.Instead what we have is the natural history of the paths taken, with incremental changes from generation to generation.Sometimes evolution ends in extinction and I suppose those could be considered your "deviants" ... but they aren't mistakes, just paths that did not pan out.The purpose of showing a path of evolution that goes from point A to point B is to show those fossils that fit along that path, it is not to show all the dead end side paths or the paths that lead to other modern critters.In other words, you are complaining about things that aren't shown not about things that don't exist. There are plenty of therapsidae that did not take the path to mammaldom, but they are not discussed in relationship to the fossils that do lie on that path. (* I fixed your link to point to Malcolm's post using mid=769316 instead of msg=138)No, it is rather being open-minded: instead of claiming that each fossil represents an individual on the specific path to Homo sapiens descent, that they could be cousins, as Neanders are considered cousins. The fossil bones bedded in the spacial temporal matrix tell the story.Curiously you are complaining here about not having that specific path where above you were complaining about not seeing the "deviants" from the path. This photo basically shows the whole fossil assemblage known at the time the photo was compiled (2000) with their relative ages. There have been several additions since then. Curiously you appear to be confusing (conflating) the variations that exist within a breeding population with the long term trends that occur over generations. You also appear to be expecting to see something that is not predicted by evolution: populations buried in different geological (temporal/spacial matrix) strata would be expected to be different. BUT they would also be expected to have some shared characteristics, and those characteristics would be expected to show a continued trend of derived traits built on previous derived traits. This is what evolution predicts, and this is what we see every time we look at a time-line of fossils. We see it with trilobites, we see it with therapsids, we see it with Pelycodus, and we see it with hominids.Again, all we need to do is arrange the fossils by spacial and temporal relationships and the evolutionary trends appear. Agreed it can happen fast, but that does not mean that all evolution has occurred rapidly. The problem you have is not with the evolution of the different populations represented by the fossils, but with their time and location sequencing: why does every new species occurs near the location of a recent ancestral species? One either accepts what the evidence shows, or they show how those dates are erroneous. That is how science is done. This is the challenge of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: how do you explain the correlations and the consilience of the dating systems if they are "prone to error" as many creationists claim.Here's a question for you Faith: how come we can recover DNA from skeletons that are older than written history, from fossils that date to 30,000 years ago, but cannot recover DNA from fossils that date to over 100 million years ... if the earth is really young?Why do each of the radioactive dating techniques all have a specific limit to how far back they can be used based solely on their half-life, why is there a different horizon for each method, ... if the earth is young?Enough for now.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : 63?

Thanks Faith, you saved me some effort; you can hide your post by using [hide](hidden text)[/hide] I've been looking for better, more complete graphics, but it seems there are not that many out there that have the newest information.So far the best collection I have seen is at wikipedia:

quote:

---

Human Evolution

​

Evidence

​

Evidence from molecular biology

​

Family tree showing the extant hominoids: humans (genus Homo), chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan), gorillas (genus Gorilla), orangutans (genus Pongo), and gibbons (four genera of the family Hylobatidae: Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus, and Symphalangus). All except gibbons are hominids.

​

Evidence from the fossil record

​

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[89] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago, and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.

​

Homo sapiens is the only extant species of its genus, Homo. While some (extinct) Homo species might have been ancestors of Homo sapiens, many, perhaps most, were likely "cousins," having speciated away from the ancestral hominin line.[103][104] There is yet no consensus as to which of these groups should be considered a separate species and which should be a subspecies; this may be due to the dearth of fossils or to the slight differences used to classify species in the Homo genus.[104]

​

One current view of the temporal and geographical distribution of genus Homo populations.[102] Other interpretations differ mainly in the taxonomy and geographical distribution of hominin species.

​

H. sapiens

​

Comparative table of Homo species

---

I am not going to reproduce that table, just follow the last link and you can see the documentation of location and date for the different Homo species (ie more than the graphic above).And then they show this: Enjoy

I lost my first reply so I'll try again. To add to what Dr A said, this is not an assumption, it is a prediction: IF B evolved from A, THEN there should be intermediate stages in the fossil record. That the fossil record does provide intermediates between A and B that are within the spacial\temporal matrix, just as the theory predicted, is validation of the theory. Remember that the theory is basically that microevolution over generations, causing anagenesis and cladogenesis, is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Indeed, and I used to have a link to a website that provided details on each one with interactive links up and down and sideways. You could go from Synopsidae to Mammalia and back. Unfortunately it is down for reconstruction:Palaeos: Life Through Deep Time
Wayback Machine*We can, however look at wikipedia:Therapsid - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Therapsida is a group of synapsids that includes mammals and their ancestors.[1][2] Many of the traits today seen as unique to mammals had their origin within early therapsids, including having their four limbs extend vertically beneath the body, as opposed to the sprawling posture of other reptiles. The earliest fossil attributed to Therapsida is Tetraceratops insignis from the Lower Permian.[3][4]

​

Phylogeny

---

See the last link for a chart of both the path from Synapsida to Mammalia.But it doesn't talk about the evolution of the ear, for that we need:Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles

​

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented[1] and important evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.

​

The evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate was originally embryological, and since this discovery an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition.[2] The evolution of the stapes was an earlier and distinct event.[3][4]

​

Early therapsid jaws and ears

​

The jaws of early synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, were similar to those of other tetrapods of the time, with a lower jaw consisting of a tooth-bearing dentary bone and several smaller posterior bones. The jaw joint consisted of the articular bone in the lower jaw and the quadrate in the upper jaw. ...

​

Mammalian and non-mammalian jaws. In the mammal configuration, the quadrate and articular bones are much smaller and form part of the middle ear. Note that in mammals the lower jaw consists of only the dentary bone.

​

Twin-jointed jaws

​

During the Permian and early Triassic the dentary of therapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, continually enlarged while other jaw bones were reduced.[26][26] Eventually, the dentary was able to make contact with the squamosal, a bone in the upper jaw located anterior to the quadrate, allowing two simultaneous jaw joints[27] - an anterior "mammalian" joint between the dentary and squamosal and a posterior "reptilian" joint between the quadrate and articular. This "twin-jointed jaw" can be seen in late cynodonts and early mammaliforms.[28] Morganucodon is one of the first discovered and most thoroughly studied of the mammaliforms, since an unusually large number of morganucodont fossils have been found, and

​

Morganucodon is an almost perfect intermediate in this respect (the "twin-jointed jaw") between the higher mammal-like reptiles on the one hand and the typical mammals on the other.[29]

​

Morganucodontidae and other transitional forms had both types of jaw joint: dentary-squamosal (front) and articular-quadrate (rear).

​

Mammal-like jaws and ears

​

As the dentary continued to enlarge during the Triassic, the older quadrate-articular joint fell out of use. Some of the bones were lost, but the quadrate (which is directly connected to the stapes), the articular (connected to the quadrate) and the angular (connected to the articular) became free-floating and associated with the stapes. This occurred at least twice in the mammaliformes ("almost-mammals"). The Multituberculates, which lived from about 160M years ago (mid-Jurassic) to about 35M years ago (early Oligocene) had jaw joints that consisted of only the dentary and squamosal bones, and the quadrate and articular bones were part of the middle ear; but other features of their teeth, jaws and skulls are significantly different from those of mammals.[18][30]

---

So there is also an evolutionary branch with the same ear (and other earlier evolved traits of mammals) that does not lead to mammals (another one of your "deviant" paths).And it looks like there were several intermediate species with double jaws as well as intermediate species where the bone size and shape lead up to the double jaw and then move from the double jaw to the single mammalian jaw and inner ear pattern seen in all mammals today.The fossils fit the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution.Enjoy

Good call, I agree with you that this is a poor choice of words.A better choice is to use the term "derived" which is then compared to "primitive" (also a poor choice imho for the same reason) or "ancestral" -- where derived traits are ones that have changed - evolved - from shared ancestral traits.Cladistics - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cladistics (from Greek κλάδος, klados, i.e. "branch")[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics that can be traced to a group's most recent common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. Therefore, members of a group are assumed to share a common history and are considered to be closely related.[2][3][4][5]

---

Introduction to Cladistics [qs]The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.[/quote]Note that these derived traits are also ancestral, just recent ancestral, and it is the most recent shared derived traits that show the most recent evolutionary history, while the most ancient shared derived traits show the more ancient evolutionary history.Enjoy

Perhaps to help you visualize the genetic possibilities we need to look at how much variation a breeding population can have. Let me suggest that the known variation in dog traits is a fairly good example of the range of change available, and we can use the difference from wolf to a variety in dogs as a known amount of variation that is possible within a species -- we know that much is possible within a reasonably short length of time: Curiously, I would say that this is strong evidence that "particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones" from the differences in size and the differences in shape, especially the shapes of the skulls and mandibles.As you noted previously, evolution can occur rapidly - especially when there is strong selection pressure (artificial pressure in the case of dog varieties), and the time span for dog evolution is a minuscule fraction of the time needed in the therapsid evolution. And magically all just happen to be put in the appropriate location and time stratum to appear to be evolution when it is really just a joke by the cosmic jester ...This is why the spatial\temporal matrix is a necessary part of the evidence. Except for those nasty intermediate fossils that actually dare show just the kind of intermediate forms of the bones expected ... Dogs. One generations variations are the next generations gradations.The population in generation A has a set of variations, of them half get reproduce in generation B along with new variations. Of the variations in population B, half get reproduce in generation C along with new variations. You now have gradations.This is why macroevolution is the continued effect of microevolution over several generations.Again, we can look at Pelycodus:

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

​

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

You can see variation within each breeding population (horizontal bars), and you can see that the overall picture trends from smaller to larger in gradations, generation after generation.Enjoy

Curiously I have used dogs many times in my arguments about the range of variation possible in a breeding population to show that moving from one fossil to another in a sequence is no more of a change than what is seen in dogs.Here, however, we were discussing the difference between variation within a breeding population and gradations between fossils of different age strata, and here dogs are helpful as well:

quote:

---

Dog Breeds

​

Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans, bred from a known foundation stock. The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans, with little or no selective breeding by humans.[1] Such breeds are undocumented, and are identified by their appearance and often by a style of working.

---

We have a good database of development of different breeds by documentation of the steps, the gradations, in their development, and this can be tested by, or used to test, the genetic clade derivations:

quote:

---

Ancient dog breeds

​

In 2004, a study looked at the microsatellites of 414 purebred dogs representing 85 breeds. The study found that dog breeds were so genetically distinct that 99% of the dogs could be correctly assigned to their breed based on their genotype. The study identified 9 breeds could be represented on the branches of a phylogenetic tree that grouped together with strong statistical support and could be separated from the other breeds in the study that had a modern European origin. These 9 breeds were once referred to as "ancient dog breeds" because historically it was believed that they had origins dating back over 500 years. The study also found that the Pharaoh Hound and Ibizan Hound were not as old as believed but had been recreated from combinations of other breeds, and that the Norwegian Elkhound grouped with the other European dogs despite reports of direct Scandinavian origins dating back 5,000 years.[20] In 2012, another DNA analysis concluded that although these breeds had not been intermingled with other breeds due to their geographic isolation, that did not make them ancient dog breeds.[21]

---

Looking to the right there is a cladogram of dog breeds, one that looks amazingly like the ones that scientists develop for fossils. You can see several branches that show intermediate stages\steps\gradations in the development of closely related breeds, with older common ancestors to less related breeds.This should not be a surprise because we know that some breeds were developed from other breeds rather than directly from wolf stock. Except that we know that there are intermediate stages\steps\gradations ... and this would hold true for other domesticated animals as well (cats, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, etc etc etc) as well as it does for dogs. All the different domesticated dog breeds were not bred independently from original stock, but rather developed from previously existing varieties. From gradations between them and the original stock.As a result there is a history of shared derived traits, with near relatives having more shared derived traits and distant relatives have fewer shared derived traits. Well actually it is kind of both and neither. Remember that there is not a claimed direct lineage of fossils, but rather that the intermediate fossils are in the same family\genus as the organisms that developed into later forms. This family\genus could show the same variations around a general theme that dogs show (altho unlikely it would be that varied due to natural selection, as many dog breeds would not likely survive long in the wild). Fossils found with more shared derived traits are thus more likely to be close to the direct lineage than ones with fewer shared derived traits.But also these changes are not "within the same race or breed" but in the lineage as that species evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, a new genus, a new family, which then evolves by microevolutionary changes into a new species, genus, family, and so on.For the therapsid evolution we are talking changing from genus to new genus to newer genus and even from family to new family to newer family ... ie - by the process that is called "macroevolution" by scientists -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:

1. The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
   ​
2. The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of (micro)evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.

Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes called phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation.If you ignore the side branches caused by cladogenesis (your 'deviants') you are left with a direct lineage that looks like continual anagenesis over many generations. Except that we have the evidence that supports it, the fossils bedded in the spacial temporal matrix, the evidence of the same processes occurring in real time with living species, and genetic DNA evidence.Making up arbitrary creation of new species does not explain the spacial\temporal matrix with having to add more magic. But it is evidenced: the fossils bedded in the spacial\temporal matrix are one set of evidence, seeing the same process work in real time with living species is another set of evidence, and the shared derived traits in the DNA is another set of evidence and they all point in the same direction. May I suggest that you get frustrated (and angry) because the evidence does not fit your "just-so stories" as neatly as it fits evolution? Indeed, in order for the dentary bone to evolve from a pair of small dentary bones in the reptile jaw to a single large dentary bone in the mammal jaw it needs to grow in size over time and it needs to fuse at the chin. Both are changes found in the intermediate fossils.For the other bones to evolve from large bones in the jaw to small bones in the inner ear, they need to shrink in size and become detached from the rest of the jaw. Both changes are found in the intermediate fossils.In order for the jaw to transition from a single joint and a mouthful of jaw bones to a single joint with just a single jaw bone it needs to go through an intermediate stage with both joints (a double jointed jaw), which again is found in several intermediate fossils. With different gradations of jaw bone sizes between the joints. Indeed. Pelycodus.Repeating a worn out invalidated argument does not make it any more valid than before. Possibly because it is true. Variations are the differences within a breeding population generation, while gradations are the differences between generations of a breeding population. Whether it is half or 10%, the point is that not all the variations within a breeding population get reproduce in the following generation, which add their own new variations to the mix, but not all of their variations get reproduced in the next generation, which adds their own new variations ... and you end up with gradations from generation to generation. Good, because repeating a worn out invalidated argument does not make it any more valid than before.Enjoy

Except that we have instances, evidence, where new species have occurred that are genetically incompatible with the parent population. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. Even though it has been invalidated by evidence of new genetic diversity created by mutations. I've struck through words in your argument that are based on your invalidated concept of genetic depletion. As you can see there is very little left to your argument. I will continue to do this in the rest of my reply to this post.When it comes to dog evolution we see a large variation in relative bone sizes and these run the gamut from very small in the Chihuahua to very large in the Great Dane to very distorted in the Boxer.When we look at the therapsid evolution\fossils we see (reference Message 126 images from wiki):

1. a moderate sized dentary bone grows to become a very large dentary bone -- similar to the change in bone size seen in the Great Dane
2. a moderate sized quadrate bone shrinks to become a very small quadrate bone -- similar to the change in bone size seen in the Chihuahua
3. an articulate bone that stays the same relative size while the others are changing
4. a "distorted" jaw shape from both these changes is not unlike the jaw of a Boxer

These are all feasible bone changes based on what we know of dogs. The double jointed jaw is also found in snakes and other animals, and once contact between the dentary and the upper jaw occurs the muscles of the jaw will use it as a pivot point.Note that these pictures only show 3 "snap-shots" of the whole trend, there are many intermediate fossils between the non-mammalian amniote and the double jaw joint Morganucodontidae and between the double jaw joint and the early mammal.Another point is that these changes take place of hundreds of millions of years according to the geological dates, while the dog changes have only occurred over tens of thousands of years (a drop in the bucket compared to the therapsid evolution):

quote:

---

Origin of the domestic dog:

​

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time 27,000—40,000 years ago.[1] These dates imply that the earliest dogs arose in the time of human hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists.[2] Modern dogs are more closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe than they are to modern gray wolves,[3] with nearly all genetic commonalities with the gray wolf due to admixture [2] but several Arctic dog breeds with the Taymyr wolf of North Asia due to admixture.[1]

​

During the LGM, there were two types of wolf. A large, heavily-built megafaunal wolf spanned the cold north of the holarctic that specialised in preying on megafauna. Another more gracile form lived in the warmer south in refuges from the glaciation. When the planet warmed and the LGM came to an end, whole species of megafauna became extinct along with their predators, leaving the more gracile form to dominate the holarctic. This wolf we know today as the modern gray wolf, which is the dog's sister but not its ancestor - the dog shows a closer genetic relationship with the extinct megafaunal wolf.

---

(LGM = Last Glacial Maximum Or that it shows gradations in the evolution of some dog varieties, with intermediate varieties between them and the megafaunal wolf that is the parent stock for both dogs and grey wolves. So you have no problem with bone size changes from non-mammalian amniote to the point just before the second jaw joint becomes established ... and you have no problem with continued bone size changes from the point just after the double jointed jaw becomes a single jointed jaw to the early mammal sizes.The issue seems to be the change in jaw articulation. I wonder if you know how these joints operate. It is not a ball and socket joint but more of a fulcrum and lever system:

quote:

---

Temporomandibular joints

​

​

The temporomandibular joints are the dual articulation of the mandible with the skull. Each TMJ is classed as a "ginglymoarthrodial" joint since it is both a ginglymus (hinging joint) and an arthrodial (sliding) joint,[37] and involves the condylar process of the mandible below, and the articular fossa (or glenoid fossa) of the temporal bone above. Between these articular surfaces is the articular disc (or meniscus), which is a biconcave, transversely oval disc composed of dense fibrous connective tissue. Each TMJ is covered by a fibrous capsule. There are tight fibers connecting the mandible to the disc, and loose fibers which connect the disc to the temporal bone, meaning there are in effect 2 joint capsules, creating an upper joint space and a lower joint space, with the articular disc in between ...

---

So really all you need to form a joint like this is a contact point and a lever with attached muscles. A very simple system. Which again means intermediate varieties and gradations in development between ancient parent population and modern populations. As shown by the fossils. By the evidence. By the spacial\temporal matrix that connects the fossils. Why do these intermediates occur between the ends of the sequence in both time and location, why don't they show up earlier if they are separate populations, why don't the end fossils show up before the intermediates if they are separate populations. Gosh speciation ... with parent population and reproductive incompatibility with daughter populations ... macroevolution (the way scientists use the word).I've also struck through what is just opinion. Nature doesn't care about desirability. Calling it macroevolution is using the word properly as it is defined by the biological sciences. It is the process as I have posted for evolution occurring over multiple generations. Disagreeing with the definition just means you are confused or want to confuse others when you misuse it. You do this a lot, and once is too many.And no, there is no data on something that does not happen. Only when you ignore the evidence or wave it away. Your claim is that the intermediate fossils are just evidence of a separate created population, one that just happens in the right time at the right place and then disappears -- sounds pretty arbitrary to me. See? Arbitrary created populations that just happens in the right time at the right place and then disappear. Again, using the terminology of a science the way it is defined in that science is not magic, it is rather how one communicates with others in a way that doesn't cause confusion. Denying the evidence does not make it go away. Science doesn't "prove" it reaches valid conclusions based on the evidence at hand and demonstrates their validity by testing predictions -- such as the prediction that if A evolved into B that there should be intermediate stages\steps\gradations that can be observed in intermediate fossils.That has been done is spades over and over and over again. I was merely pointing out that a common result of cognitive dissonance is frustration and anger because reality doesn't fit your world-view. And the next generations produce new variations because mutations. Ignoring mutations does not make them disappear. Except that the whole fossil/spacial/temporal matrix shows this pattern from the dawn of life to the present day. Every fossil ever found fits the pattern, every DNA sequence ever made fits the pattern. I don't call that rare, I call that pervasive. And ignored the gradations over time. Again, denial does not make the evidence go away. Only to you Faith. As you can see, once I have removed your baseless invalid arguments there is not much left.Enjoy

According to the biological definition of species. Doesn't matter. The scientific definition of biological species is what matters and not whatever you think. This is your problem to resolve with yourself: reality of Faithism. Is the biological definition of speciation, and also the biological definition of macroevolution = the development of new species and the formation of a new clade level. They are new species by definition and you can't change that. It IS macroevolution as defined and used by biological scientist, and you cannot change that, no matter what you think.Your presumption of depleted genetics has been refuted absolutely by the demonstration of new genetic variation due to mutations. You can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist but that doesn't change reality. Your choice is to either accept reality as it is, or to run away from it and try to continue to pretend that reality does not exist. Your choice. Whatever you choose will not change reality.Enjoy

Well you can't stop evolution by rejecting the definition of a word, Faith. You just need to look around you and you can see evolution happening: there is variation in every generation of every species. Would you ever consider that it is not full "depleted" yet?Personally I don't see why you get so hung up on this -- it is still reproduction after their own kind, as you assume happened since your purported all expenses paid round the world mega-yacht trip. You claim all living species are the product of that (super hyper-rapid) evolution: why should it end today?Of course in evolutionary talk it is still reproduction within a clade and all new species will always be members of that clade. So other than your weird insistence on the evolution of life, once it left the ark, ending *suddenly* in your lifetime, there is no real difference in the observation that offspring will always be related to and have traits of their parents. Scientifically speaking it doesn't matter one whit what you call it -- we just happen to call all living organisms and all past organisms a species and give that species a name as a matter of convenience in talking about them. Nature could care less about what we call them.Scientifically speaking what is important is that life forms nested hierarchies, and when we use cladistics (as is increasingly the case) we say that any offspring of a species in the dogs "megafaunal wolf" clade is still a member of the dogs "megafaunal wolf" clade, ... even if they happen to form a new species.The only distinction that we make between variety and species is that one (variety) can readily interbreed and the other (species) theoretically can't (altho this appears to be getting somewhat nebulous).But it doesn't really matter what we call it because words don't control what happens. It just matters to US that we are consistent in what we call it ... because words are used to describe what happens in a meaningful way to promote understanding rather than confusion. It has. No, you have hand waved and misrepresented your way around the evidence. You mean the sort of changes that you imagine is "required" rather than the sort of changes that actually occur. Except that you haven't, because ... it does happen and has happened and has been observed happening. Evolution and speciation have been observed, and that is all.that.is.necessary.Is an actually observed phenomena. It is a fact. Personal opinion is not evidence.Enjoy

Which it does, because it illustrates that the bones can change sizes dramatically and that the relative positions can change significantly.Now here is another set of drawings of the transition from non-mammalian amniote to early mammal:

quote:

---

The following discussion is taken from "29 Evidences for Macroevolution; Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree" Copyright 1999-2002 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Reptile-mammal transition, with emphasis on the evolution of the interdependent mammalian middle ear ossicles.

​

As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy - several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional. ...

​

Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals. The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.

​

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)

​

Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.

---

So to be very very clear, these stages involve just the kind of bone size changes seen in dogs, and they do not represent a "rearrangement" of the bones any more than is seen in dogs. Again I quote for emphasis:

quote:

---

... Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. ...

---

You can see this in the drawings, it is clear that the bones change sizes and that the jostling of positions is due to those changing sizes. Just as we see in some dogs compared to other dogs.We see incremental changes in size and shape of bones in these intermediate fossils, just as we see incremental differences in size and shape of bones in some dogs compared to other dogs.The only place you see movement of the bones that is not associated with the size changes is after the mammalian ear has been formed, and it becomes detached from the jaw bone. This kind of detachment of bones where their attachment no longer serves a purpose is common (ie whale hips, etc)As you can see the evolution develops by stages, by gradations, by intermediate steps, with different things occurring at different times of the overall transition. Note the time scale on the drawing: to be intermediate the fossils need to be found in the right location and the right time to fit between the ancestor and the offspring. They do.Note that Tiktaalik was found by determining the right time (geological layering) and place (environment) for the intermediate fossil, and then looking in that specific formation. That is how science works: prediction and test and validation.Enjoy

Yep, that was kind of where I was heading on "species" as really a term of reference, a generally homogeneous breeding population but some fringes.The important thing to the evolution of diversity is the separation of a breeding population into two (or more) daughter populations that do not generally interbreed, whether for physical, biological or behavioral reasons, and then are free to evolve independently as a separate branch in the clade.Distinctive differences in evolution occur between populations when they are isolated from one another by any mechanism.ps -- nice dog skulls. You could also compare shoulders of boxers and greyhounds.Edited by RAZD, : sp