Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD

quote:

---

Now you are going to need to define what a "kind" means. Then you need to actually show there is a genetic boundary, something in the cell that prevents mutations beyond a certain level.

---

mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious.

quote:

---

Can you point to one single population of organisms that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation?

---

lol?you are misrepresenting my position.read again what ive said.the extent of what you are claiming is the issue that i have. the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record.the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right?:)
once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something.

quote:

---

greenish warblers

---

no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird.

quote:

---

pelycodus speciation

---

you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position?please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most.

quote:

---

foraminifera evolution

---

i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind?

can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird?
and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution.plus try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized.where im going has no internet access but ill be back.take care.:)

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Ignore coyote's post, it will be deleted by moderators as this is a great debate thread.

Perhaps what I posted could be refuted before it is deleted?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

do you have a shorter name to use? S1tk for instance?

... the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.

The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas:

Berkeley - evolution 101:

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

However, these animals also have some key differences:

Sugar gliders live in Australia, and flying squirrels live in North America.

Sugar gliders have a pouch (like a kangaroo does), which provides shelter and safety for their tiny babies — at birth, a baby sugar glider is smaller than a peanut! Flying squirrels, on the other hand, have much larger babies and no pouch.

By studying their genes and other traits, biologists have figured out that sugar gliders and flying squirrels are probably not very closely related. Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals and flying squirrels are placental mammals.

---

From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal.

When you look at the fossil record the ancestors of these animals are less similar than these two, so they have been evolving separately to be similar towards a common end.

added by edit:

The alternative is that all mammals back to the first mammal are one "kind" - thus including not only duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, koala bears and echidna, but elephants, whales, giraffes, and mole rats ... to say nothing of humans.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : abe last P

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

S1tk (if you don't mind my using that abbreviation)

mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious.

ummm, no it isn't. Are therapsids mammals or reptiles? Is archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? Are dinosaurs reptiles?

Is Tiktaalik rosea a fish or an amphibian?

you are misrepresenting my position

No, it is that I don't understand it. If you agree that all life shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation then we can agree that evolution exists, and that all life forms evolve.

Then we can move on to the question/s of the descent of daughter populations from common parent populations, and where\when this pattern of common descent, with modification, first starts.

the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right?

What is a "cross-over" and how is the coelacanth one?

the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record.

Again, this is a meaningless statement without a definition of "kinds" that holds up to the evidence.

Populations descend from previous populations, with modification as they inherit different mutations, and different ecologies select for different adaptation of organisms to the ecologies. All such populations will necessarily be of the same type\group\form\kind\etc as their parent populations. They evolve as they descend, so the descendants are different from the ancestors, but mammals don't become birds (they become bats, another example of convergent evolution).

Even the coelacanths have evolved over the last 65 million years.

So now we are talking about transitions rather than your amazing magic yeast? That's called moving the goalposts when you cannot answer the questions.

added by edit:

mammal. ...

As noted above (after edit) this includes an extremely large and diverse group of organisms, including man. Can you tell be what kind of time period was necessary to generate this diversity?

The first mammal (or protomammal) in the fossil record is from the transition from synapsid to therapsid:

THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES

quote:

---

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

---

This is where the ear evolved from a single bone attached to a multi-bone jaw into a structure composed of three bones separated from a single bone jaw, characteristic of all mammals. The series of transitional fossils includes several that have two jaw joint, both the old reptile joint and the new mammal joint, while the various bones change in dimensions and positions. This restructuring was already well underway by the mid-Permian Period, some 271 to 260 million years ago. Note that therapsids predate dinosaurs

quote:

---

Dinosaurs ... from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago)

---

Also see: http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/400Therapsida/400.000.html
and http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/400Therapsida/400.800.html

From an excellent interactive website that you can search up and down the evolutionary path from synapsid to modern mammal

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added end info

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

continuing

once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something.

Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line.

That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.

(added by edit?) ill ... try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized.

It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it.

You also need to study "cursorial hunting"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursorial_hunting

quote:

---

Cursorial hunting is a hunting strategy practised by animals that are much slower over short distances than their quarry but have superior endurance over long distances.

The hunters will pursue at a relatively measured pace a targeted quarry which in response will make short but high energy sprints to escape. Eventually the relentless pursuit will exhaust the quarry allowing it to be brought down by its pursuers.

---

Dogs (whoops I mean wolves) use this method of hunting.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added in response to added material

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

S1tk, do you know what the term "gish gallop" means? It means piling on a bunch of questions and assertions without answering the ones you have to answer for YOUR position to be valid.

no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird.

The greenish warblers are evidence of the minimal amount of evolution necessary to achieve reproductive isolation, so it was not intended to show the transition from reptile to bird. You have moved the goalposts again.

The transition from reptile to bird first goes through the transition from reptile to dinosaurs, and then one branch of the dinosaurs, the therapods, evolves into birds (some people consider birds to be living dinosaurs).

You do realize, don't you, that the evolution of feathers by dinosaurs is becoming increasingly well known as more and more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers are found?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

quote:

---

The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.[1]

---

The early feathers are symmetrical, while modern bird feathers have become asymmetrical as this slight change provides improved flight characteristics.

Click to enlarge

Also see http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/feathered/index.html
and http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html
or just google "feathered dinosaur"

We now know that feathers evolved long before the first flying therapod, and only later were they adapted to flight.

(added by edit?) can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird?

Not at all what I said, the transition from reptile to bird includes ALL the dinosaurs in between.

Here is some additional information on the transitional elements:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dinoarch.htm

quote:

---

Here are 20 to get you started (characters shared with/retained from dromaeosaurids and other related theropods and dinosaurs):

1. Tridactyl manus with manual digits IV, V lost
2. Manual digit I robust
3. Manual digit II longest in hand
4. Manual digit III slender, with phalanges 3, 4 both short
5. Semilunate carpal
6. V-shaped furcula present
7. Straplike scapula
8. Functionally tridactyl pes with retroverted hallux
9. Advanced mesotarsal ankle
10. Splintlike metatarsal V
11. Ascending process on astragalus
12. Slender fibula
13. Femur with orthogonally inturned head
14. Perforate acetabulum
15. Pelvis moderately opisthopubic
16. Pubis long, rodlike with distal expansion
17. Bladelike ilium
18. Sacrum with at least 5 vertebrae (A. has six)
19. Long tail, distally stiffened
20. Jaws with teeth

There are dozens more--I've scarcely touched the skull in this list. But you get the idea, yes?

---

Shared characteristics, elements that existed in the ancestor dinosaurs and which are preserved in archeopteryx. Several (jaws with teeth) that are lost in modern birds.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added to respond to added question

Edited by RAZD, : added transition link and quote

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

S1tk

you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position?

What?

Again the information on Pelycodus is provided to demonstrate the evolution of the population and that speciation is recorded in the fossil record. You can find this same evidence on several different sites.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_gradual.htm

Click to enlarge

(which shows two other speciation events, where the other daughter population went extinct)

Notice that it says "[diagram after Gingerich]" and this refers to the original science journal article by Philip D. Gingerich (U of M). You can read one of his papers here

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48507/2/ID358.pdf

Are you claiming that Pelycodus speciation is a hoax?

Or are you refering to Don Lindsay's article on the Piltdown man? Did you read the article? Do you really want to change the topic to fraud\hoaxes now?

please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most.

All of life. There is not one aspect of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from pre-history and archeology, from geology, physics and paleontology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record, that contradicts or challenges the theory of evolution and of the descent (with modification) of existing life-forms from the simple single cell forms that appear in the first rocks that are known to carry evidence of life, some 3.5 million years ago.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : graphic missed before

Edited by RAZD, : added to last P

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

S1tk

i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind?

Not really, it is just one of many pieces of information that fit evolution. Notice the near perfect continuity of fossil lineages.

and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution.

Take your time. You might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

and note the taxonomic classification:
Phylum: Foraminifera

see http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html
for how it fits in the picture.

for reference the phylum for humans is Chordata, animals with a spinal chord, which includes fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals ... a wide range of life forms

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : finished

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

note that I have added bits at the end of Message 35 and Message 36 as it appears that you added to the end of your post after I had written them.

You have not been invited to post in this thread Coyote. Please do not post here again.

hey S1tk, hope you had a good time, and are ready to delve back into the fray.

still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.

Another example of convergent evolution, one that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth, is the killer whale and the white shark:

quote:

---

KILLER WHALE
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia

Click to enlarge

The Orca or Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), less commonly, Blackfish or Seawolf, is the largest species of the dolphin family. It is found in all the world's oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to warm, tropical seas.

Orca are versatile and opportunistic predators. Some populations feed mostly on fish, and other populations hunt marine mammals, including sea lions, seals, walruses and even large whales. They are considered the apex predator of the marine world.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_shark

quote:

---

WHITE SHARK
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Chondrichthyes

Click to enlarge

The great white shark, also known as white pointer, white shark, or white death, is an exceptionally large lamniform shark found in coastal surface waters in all major oceans. Reaching lengths of more than 6 m (20 ft) and weighing up to 2,250 kg (5,000 lb), the great white shark is arguably the world's largest known predatory fish. It is the only surviving species of its genus, Carcharodon.

---

(except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...)

It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar sharks, which are from an ancient order:

Click to enlarge

Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... or does this make Chordata the "kind" division?

The ultimate conclusion is - once again - that all life is of one "kind" ... as shown by the structure of DNA in all life, that there are no apparent genetic barriers that divide life into two or more groups of organisms.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ,,

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

hey S1tk,

I found an on-line copy of a paper by Gingrich with a review of the fossil data for pelycodus and another version of his chart:

SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE ADAPIDAE (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) IN NORTH AMERICA
Vol. 24, No. 22, p. 245-279 (13 text-figs.) August 15,1977

I want to quote one particular section as it mirrors what I've said:

quote:

---

Given the pattern of phylogeny in text-fig. 10, and the details of morphological change discussed in the section of this paper on systematics, it is possible to subdivide each lineage into a sequence of valid species. Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into P. mckennai, which evolved into P. trigonodus, and SO forth. While the distinction between lineages is nonarbitrary, it must be emphasized that the exact boundary between successive species within a lineage is arbitrary (although each species as a whole can be distinguished morphologically). No natural breaks are obvious, and it is necessary for ease of discussion and for use in biostratigraphy to make essentially artificial boundaries between species. It turns out, largely for historical reasons, that these correspond fairly well with established subdivisions of the Wasatchian (Sand Coulee, lower Gray Bull, etc. - which themselves are poorly defined at present). Since the boundaries between time successive species must be time-parallel to make taxonomic diversity reflect biological diversity, the successive species of Pelycodus can potentially serve as a useful substitute in zonation of the Wasatchian, pending a full scale faunal study of this interval of evolutionary history. In this connection it is important to emphasize that the distinctions between species are based on comparisons of whole samples from each locality, and the transitions between species appear in every case to be continuous and gradual. Thus any zonation based on Pelycodus could be used, at best, to subdivide the Wasatchian into five subunits.
(p273)

---

Here's the graphic:

Click to enlarge

quote:

---

Our primary interest in studying Pelycodus and Copelemur has not been biostratigraphic zonation of the Wasatchian, but rather the patterns of phylogeny and evolution exhibited by these genera. The genealogical relationships of the species of Copelemur are still somewhat obscure, owing to the inadequate stratigraphic record of these species. The only reasonably certain relationship is the ancestor-descendant relationship of C. feretutus and C. consortutus. Within Pelycodus, on the other hand, we can be much more certain about genealogical relationships. The four species from P. ralstoni to P. abditus appear to be a single ancestor-descendant sequence, with P. abditus giving rise to both P. frugivoms and P. jarrovii.

---

Always good to go to an original source, if you can.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

hi razd i hope things are good with you.we have come into town somewhat earlier than expected due to an unforseen occurence so im here for an evening before going out again.now i feel i must reemphasise my problems with the theory with evolution and remind you i believe in the account of genesis.

this tends to render most of your examples that you have provided rather moot.i have a problem with.

.1.simple lifeforms like bacteria being able to become superior lifeforms
.2.reptiles being able to become mammals,especially reptiles becoming birds.
.3.habilis being a link in mans ancestry.

the example you provided in this post doesnt actually address my concerns.

quote:

---

Tiktaalik rosea

---

never heard of fish that can survive outside of water for periods of time?also show me in clear fossil form how this representative of your transitional beliefs evolved from fish to land if thats what you are getting at?

quote:

---

archeopteryx

---

you seem to know a lot more about this "transitional" creature than scientists who have studied it and have decided to put it on a seperate branch rather than a direct ancestor between reptile and bird.also in some quarters its been regarded with suspicion.further study will provide the answers someday.but to promote it as a direct ancestor is untrue.

quote:

---

therapsida

---

cold blooded probably reptilian.warm blooded probably mammal.i have issues with evolutionary artistry and creative license.lets see some actual fossils please.and without step by step fossil links to prove this is a link,it becomes just another variety.

quote:

---

Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line.

That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.

---

i find the 95% figure misleading .to me theres a huge difference between chimps and man.care to disagree with that statement?you ignored my example of evidence of young male pharoahs 3000 odd years old that show no sign of being more primitive.dna similarities are due to being designed to cohabit.

quote:

---

It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it.

---

interesting strategy.you are using chimp behaviour to justify that habilis isnt a chimp.chimps use stone tools as well according to jane goodall.

quote:

---

The hunters will pursue at a relatively measured pace a targeted quarry which in response will make short but high energy sprints to escape. Eventually the relentless pursuit will exhaust the quarry allowing it to be brought down by its pursuers.

---

except you would need a lot of 3.5 foot high small brained chimps to take anything down.how many fossils of handyman have been found in the area again?