Warthaug
Contributor
So you didn't like the definition scientists gave to a scientific term, so you choose to re-write it? I wasn't aware that we could re-define the entirety of the English language for our own purposes...
None-the-less, evolution, micro/macroevoltuion, etc, are scientifically defined terms, which means that your re-writing of those terms is meaningless.
In this you are 100% wrong, as pointed out before. We have observed and recorded the formation of new species over 2000 times in the scientific literature. We've seen speciation in every major grouping of organisms - viruses, bacteria, archea, fungi, plants, animals, even mammals.
It is also arguable that we've seen the formation of a new genus (in viruses and perhaps in bacteria), although since genus is a human invention, and not everyone agrees on what it means, that's up in the air.
Those speciation events have been observed both in the lab, and in nature. In the case of many of the lab examples, we have all of the transitional forms.
In terms of the fossil record, there are many lines of organisms in which complete series of transitional forms between one species and the next are to be found.
Also, your expectation that we should see more transitional forms then we do is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how life evolves. Species tend to be constantly changing, meaning if you dig up fossils of the same species, but from say a million years difference in time, it can be hard to tell if you're looking at one species, or two (due to the difference). The paleontological standard is to assume that they are both the same species. Ergo, when you look at samples from within the same "species", arrayed by date, you seen more of the transitional forms.
And, as I pointed out, you are still wrong.
Sure you can. Lots of small changes lead upto huge differences - look at continental drift.
Oh sorry, that all happened over 6,000 years, so it was BIG change
Firstly, you are wrong. "Ginormous" mutations are seen and are beneficial in some types of organisms - one needs look no farther then how speciation occurs in some plants to see that. Likewise, HIV re-writes upto 30% of it genome while evolving in a host - the end result - a fitter, faster replicating and more infective virus. But then again, thats large changes via lots of small steps...
Secondly, as pointed out previously, huge mutations are not needed for evolution to progress. Take humans and chimps - different species, big changes. And yet all that is the product of a small number of point mutations, and a few chromosomal rearrangements. Both very common (4/person/generation for points, about 1/100,000 people/generation for rearrangements).
As pointed out numerous times to you, large changes occur over small steps, and that is exactly what we see. And don't forget - rapid change, like that you keep claiming we need to see for evolution to be true - is not expected by evolution. In fact, evolutionary theory pretty clearly states that rapid change (i.e. huge leaps in a single generation) are impossible.
What you are asking for, in essence, is proof that creationism is correct. Only by providing evidence for creationism, will you accept evolution.
But I'm sure you don't see the problem with that.
In my time on earth I've never seen an atom. By your logic, they therefore cannot exist.
The argument you're using is a common form of logical fallacy, technically called an "argument from incredulity", and has been known since plato's time to be a false form of argument. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
And, as pointed out to you 10,000 times in this thread, such mutations would be one form of disproof of evolutionary theory. Maybe you should learn what the theory actually says before you criticize it.
And, as I pointed out all three times I gave the example, that would have occurred over multiple generations through numerous small changes. In fact, I distinctly remember pointing out that the only way it could occur simultaneously was if there was a morphogen for pouch that wasn't used elsewhere. Witch, if I remember what I wrote correctly, would be the least probable of the possible mechanisms I pointed two.
Hardly. There is a long, and near-continuous sequence of fossils from the common ancestor between chimps and humans, and modern humans. Today, we have at least 15 transitional forms between the LCA and humans. Within most of those forms we have multiple skeletons, in some cases showing yet more intermediary forms.
As for "missing links", there are no longer any major ones. The LCA was identified a few years ago. Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, allowing a genetic reconstruction of the latter portion of our evolution. In depth comparisons of the chimp and human genome have also helped clarify the fossils we've found - we now know that chimps and humans diverged and reunited a few times before speciation took hold, explaining a lot of the "issues" with timing that existed before.
So let me get this straight - our self-proclaimed "expert" on why evolution is false is unaware of the single most complete line of fossils! Wow, and that data's only what - 50 years old?
Horses are among the most complete fossil records out there, with every step of their evolution recorded in the fossil record. Over two hundred distinct species, spread out among 32 genera, spread out over 55 millions years. Given the average time a single species lasts, the probability of us missing anything along the line is quite slow.
We have hundreds of examples of most of those genera, and dozens of many of the species. Within those species you see numerable transitional forms. In fact, MacFadden, one of the leading paleontology experts on horses once stated that there are so many transitional fossils among horses that his staff frequently argue over which species they belong to.
He's also written an excellent book (in the early 1990's, sorry forget the title), complete with pictures of many of the fossils.
If you're going to reply to my messages, please read what I write first. The evolution of the pouch would have occurred long, long, long before we had wombats - it may even have preceded marsupials. Wombats simply inherited it from their ancestor. The pouch is at least 125 million years old.
And no, there is no decision. But as the pre-marsipuals evolved, those with a something looking more like a pouch would have given better protection to their young, and therefore given birth to more young, and therefore been selected for. This would have promoted the selection of mutation for better pouches. However, mutations that altered the pouch to be incompatible with the animals life style - digging, for example, would have been selected against.
The only dilemma is in your poor understanding of evolution. Evolution neither expects, nor requires, large "jumps" like you seem to think it does. In fact, evolution pretty much precludes that.
And, in plants where such mutations are common, we see them all the time. In fact, the first scientific observation of speciation involved such a mutation, resulting in O gigas.
Actually, we see it each and every day. In my case, its actually a problem. I spend thousands of dollars creating bacteria with modified genes. And wouldn't you know - them little bastards constantly evolve away the changes I make. I've even seen it happen in mice - $50,000 nearly down the toilet (thank goodness for frozen embryos).
Bryan
