US scientists may have resolved 'Darwin's dilemma'

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You keep trying to equate them but they are radically different. Why?
Microevolution makes for a more specialized species using DNA that the organism already has.
Sometimes in Microevolution DNA is actually lost. Macroevolution assumes that DNA is somehow magically GAINED.
And not only is it gained, the DNA gains must be positive."

First of all, just to be strictly clear: there's no such thing as DNA being "gained" or "lost" -- so that entire argument is null and void.
What happens instead is that every generation, without exception, is born with a small number of more-or-less random DNA mutations -- a handful out of four billion letters in our DNA code.
Most of these mutations fall into what is sometimes labeled "junk DNA" and so produce no known effects.
Of those which do produce effects most are negative, and so get weeded out by natural selection.
But a very small number of mutations actually benefit the offspring, and so natural selection passes them down to following generations.

And that's it -- so-called micro-evolution, or macro-evolution, it's all the same, short term or long term.
No actual DNA is "gained" or "lost", it's just instructions which change -- i.e., from brown eyes to blue, or dark hair to blonde, etc.

Yes, when you compare DNA of various creatures, you do see some have more code letters than others, but this has nothing to do with how "advanced" they are -- humans do not have "more DNA" than other creatures, indeed some have more than we do.
The difference is in the code itself, not in the number of letters.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "So far all DNA corruption we have ever seen have been negative.
Big difference.
One is scientific fact, the other is theory."

No, the scientific fact is that we can see recent small DNA changes in mankind which are beneficial, and of which I listed a small number in post #248 above.
But just so we're clear: those are not actual additions, or "gains" to the DNA code, just changes to the code which benefit mankind.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your claim that there have been positive gains in DNA are ridiculous.
The high altitude one you mentioned isn't a DNA gain, it is situational.
Anyone who lives in such climate their body adjusts to it.
Same for the milk one.
The body is a great adjuster.
But it didn't have to mutate to adjust."

Sorry, sir, but it's your lack of understanding of recent DNA analyses which is laughable -- you've got it all wrong.

In fact, in recent years specific DNA code has been identified for all the changes I listed, and others too -- i.e., Tibetan and Andean high altitude adaptations (not the same), milk tolerance among dairying people, sickle cells to fight malaria.
Again, these are not "gains" or "losses", but changes from one set of instructions to something different.
Analyzing the code (compared to others without those changes) also tells us about when such changes first happened.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You keep claiming there are thousands of examples of missing links.
The problem with many of them is that they are based on fragments too small to really determine anything.
For instance take Nebraska Man, which was supposed to be an intermediate form between apes and man."

So-called Nebraska man was first published in 1922, reevaluated and retracted in 1927.
It is not considered a hoax, but honest mistake corrected as soon as new evidence came to light.

Consider: in the past 150+ years hundreds of early human and pre-human sites have been carefully excavated, producing thousands of bones from dozens of human-like species or sub-species.
Some include nearly complete skeletons.
So there's no way, FRiend, that you can legitimately hide behind your claim of "too small to determine anything".

There's lots of data, for anyone who wants to look.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "These so-called evolutionary proofs keep on getting debunked based on further information."

The fact is, you must look back 90 years to find your example of "Nebraska man", while in the mean time hundreds and hundreds of other ancient individuals were carefully excavated & analyzed scientifically, some of them even including their DNA.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "When looking at that list of skulls you have, they are all either men, or apes of various kinds (some of them extinct)."

Please take a closer look: only two of those skulls are from living creatures today -- the first skull of a modern chimpanzee, and the last skull of a modern human being.
All the other skulls in between, without exception, come from extinct "transitional forms" between chimps and humans.
All were dated, and are shown in the sequence they lived -- from oldest to most recent.

The point should be so clear and obvious nobody can miss it: each succeeding "transitional form" was slightly less chimp-like and slightly more human-like, just as evolution theory predicts.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, upon looking at the Neanderthal bones found that the specimen had was simply an old person with a bad case of rickets (lack of vitamin D) and also arthritis."

Virchow died in 1902, he studied one Neanderthal skull in the late 1800s, pronouncing it an old deformed human.
Since that time, remains of hundreds of other Neanderthals have been excavated and studied, including many Neanderthal children.
So today there is no scientific doubt: Virchow got it wrong and Neanderthals were a separate sub-species of humans, who lived at the same time as humans, but were driven to extinction quite likely at the hands of humans.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Homo heidelbergensis is also obviously human."

Pre-human Homo heidelbergensis follows Homo egaster in the photo, egaster remains dated from 1.8 million to 1.3 million years ago, with heidelbergenis following from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago.
Homo heidelbergensis predate Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans, and may be the common ancestors of all three later populations.
Homo heidelbergensis were replaced by Neanderthals in Europe and by Denisovans in Asia.

Ancient Heidelbergensis were not human, they were pre-human, and may well have been our ancestors.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Australopithecus is acknowledged by many scientists to have simply been a chimpanzee."

As you can see by finding Australopithecus in the photo, next after the chimpanzee, it is the most ancient and most chimp-like of the "transitional forms".
But it was certainly not 100% chimpanzee -- it had already made some changes towards becoming more human-like.
And every "transitional form" after it became less chimp-like and more human-like.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...in the case. of the Lucy skeleton, the scientist actually broke apart the pelvis, which was said to have looked too much like a primate's and then reglued it back together in a more human looking shape."

Lucy's pelvis was found in a broken-apart condition, and was glued together by researchers.
Later analysis showed the first reconstruction to be in error -- didn't fit the other bones -- so it was redone, making her more human-like.
Bottom line: Lucy was certainly more chimp-like than human, however she was also more human-like than any modern chimp.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Dr. David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History..."

Raup is certainly no anti-evolutionist, and so I highly suspect that his words here are misquoted or seriously taken out of context.
It would not be the first time you people have done such things.
And, the real fact of this matter is: the fossil record today is orders of magnitude more complete than it was in Darwin's time, and yes, each new discovery has sometimes required rethinking previous conclusions.
However no new discovery has ever challenged the basic idea of evolution theory.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "For instance, a rhodospirillum rubrum bacterium shares more of its DNA with a horse than with a yeast.
A lamprey eel has only a 15% difference in DNA with a horse. and there is only an 8% difference between the DNA of a pigeon and a turtle."

First of all, your numbers here are wildly off, even considering that results much depend on exactly what is compared, and how it's done.
So to restore some sanity here, let's remember the general rule is: the more closely related the species, the more similar their DNA.
Thus for a few examples, human beings DNA are said to be 99.5% the same as each other, we share 96% with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with rats, 60% with chickens, and so on down the list until we see numbers like 15% with bacteria.

All of these numbers correspond to evolution theory predictions, and confirm what the fossil record shows.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...why then do we find numerous examples of the supposedly less evolved specimens and the supposed missing links on layers higher than the specimens that supposedly came after them?"

Two obvious explanations can usually be determined by researchers on site:

Over the course of geological history, when continents collide, pushing up mountains, sometimes fossils in newer rock are forced underneath fossils in older rock.
Some time in the past, younger fossils high up on a hillside erode, get washed downhill and land lower down, below rocks & fossils of an older age.

The first case is more common, and rather easily worked out by geologists.
The second case, of fossils washed downhill, could be more problematic, but I think also quite rare, since you would not expect fossils to long survive open-air exposure to the elements.
Bottom line: no confirmed case has ever been found which seriously falsifies evolution theory.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...why are these charts (like the one you posted) purporting to show an evolutionary sequence take specimens of various different ages, that were found on various different continents, and on various different layers (often with the human ones in layers lower than the "missing links", and put them in line as if one was supposedly the ancestor of the others?
This is ridiculous bs and is entirely unscientific."

What is certainly "ridiculous and entirely unscientific" is your callous disregard for and total misrepresentation of the facts, sir.

Scientifically, every site excavated, every fossil found, every bone analyzed is carefully dated according to the best available methods, including geological and forensic comparisons, plus radiometric tests.
Over 150 years, this has been done on hundreds of human related sites and thousands of others showing non-human evolution.
None has ever seriously contradicted or falsified evolution theory, all your spurious claims here notwithstanding.

Texas Songwriter: "Hello my Friend..."

Then FRiend it is!

Texas Songwriter: "On your devotion to the idea of panspermia.....you say...it could be scientifically confirmed......
That is your statement of faith I referenced in a previous post to you."

But, of course, I am in no way, in your word "devoted" to the idea of panspermia, nor is "could be" ever a "statement of faith."
Indeed, you insult serious real faith to suggest that "could be" equals "faith".

I merely reported, factually, that panspermia is just one hypothesis among at least a dozen now "out there" on how life might have begun on earth.

Here is just one list of those hypotheses, which I linked to in a post here "Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists", but just for you, I'll post the whole list here.
Of course, this particular list is not rigorously defined, it's incomplete and overstocked with historical ideas, currently discredited.
So I only post it as a representative sample of ideas floating around "out there".
For details on each item, see the link here.

10. Panspermia:
9. Biopoesis:
8. Cosmogeny:
7. Endosymbiosis:
6. Spontaneous Generation:
5. Clay "Theory"
4. "Theory" of Consecutive Creations
3. Materialistic "Theory"
2. Organic Evolution
1. "Theory" of Special Creation

But, if this list leaves you unsatisfied, then you might consider another list, which includes some of the same items, plus some others left off the above...

Texas Songwriter: "If you would provide me with scientific documents proving bacteria inhabit outer space I would like to read them."

Of course not, it's merely suggested that life might somehow survive inside a comet or asteroid thrown out by some collision with a planet.
"Hypothesis" means: "it coulda happened", not some article of religious faith, for goodness sakes!

Texas Songwriter: "Your assertion that panspermia is unlikely by not impossible is philosophical assumption you make."

No it isn't!
It's a hypothesis which has not yet been fully tested, and therefore not firmly falsified, yet.
So I don't "get" why you keep trying to turn science into some kind of religion.
It's not, it's the opposite of a religion, FRiend.
Do I need to explain why, again?

Texas Songwriter: "Early life.....3.9 billion years ago?......
Cambrium 600 million years ago.
Precambrium blue green algae found but never dated to nearly 4 billion years, has it.
If it has please give me reference."

Of course, no "life" has been found from 3.9 billion years ago, but evidence thought to be left by primitive life has been found from that time, as listed here:

3.7 bya "The earliest evidence for life on Earth is graphite found to be biogenic in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[2]
3.5 bya: "and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[3][4]
3.5 bya: "The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga...
2.5 bya: "Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[5]
2.4 bya: "[Photosynthesis] ...eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[6]
1.9 bya: "The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga.
1.7 bya: "Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[9]
555 mya: "Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago"

For a more scholarly discussion of Origin of Life ideas, I suggest this 2012 book by Addy Pross: "What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology"

Texas Songwriter: "Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity."

And, if stated correctly such an idea is 100% factual.
In fact, there is great similarity in early fetuses of closely related creatures, with species-defining features only emerging in later development.
Even in less-closely-related creatures, there is still some remarkable similarity, of which we've now mentioned the example of "gill slits" several times.
That Earnst Haenkel interpreted these facts somewhat incorrectly (in 1874!) is true, but I would give him credit for honest mistakes, not deliberate deceptions.

Today Haenkel's idea -- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- is considered "defunct", but not totally wrong:

"The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[23]
However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures"

So, here's what I don't understand: why do you people take Haeckel's work as not just obsolete, but as a personal insult, if not physical assault, on you?.
Do you likewise condemn every single scientist who ever published anything which later proved somewhat invalid?
What's up with that?

Texas Songwriter: "Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings.
As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions."

Sure, some at the time disputed his recapitulation idea, and even then claimed fraud:

"While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[29]

Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.
[30][31] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud.
It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[32]
Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time.[33]
The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory)."

Texas Songwriter: "Now you must make a determination about the validity of the recapitulation law.
Are we a "tad dishonest"?
Is that a fair indictment of people who have actually reviewed the literature by someone who clearly has never investigated it?
I think not, my Friend."

Haeckel published 144 years ago, in 1870 and died 95 years ago, in 1919.
His work was controversial at the time, though nobody then fully understood the truth of the matter.

Now, biologists long ago decided that Haeckel's idea of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not 100% accurate, but also not entirely wrong.

Texas Songwriter quoting Lewontin: "We take the side of science 'in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs', 'in spite of its failure' to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment to materialism."

Lewontin (age 85) is a well known evolutionary biologist and geneticist.
Like any active academic, he enjoys controversy and splitting hairs with other academics over fine points of theory.
His words you quote here could well refer to our average citizens, those Rush calls "low information voters".
Yes, it is indeed possible that science has replaced religion in their minds as the great hope for eternal life.

But Lewontin's reference to science's "a priori commitment to materialism" is, in fact, the core principle upon which all of Natural-Science is based.
To complain about it is like complaining about the sun rising and setting -- it is what it is.
Until & unless somebody like Lewontin were to propose some new, better, more effective scientific principle to replace "methodological naturalism" -- it will remain the foundation of all future scientific enterprises.

Texas Songwriter: "I take note of you pointing out my core, deep rooted, fundamental problem but I am yet to get any substantive information from you yet."

No you didn't "take note", because clearly you missed my point: you don't grasp that natural-science is not all about higher forms of truth, such as morals, or matters philosophical, supernatural & spiritual.
By definition, because they are non-material, natural-science can't define those, can't address them, and really, should not even go there.

So, if you are "looking for Higher Truth in all the wrong places", don't waste any more time with natural-science, because you won't find it there, FRiend.
Where, seriously, can you find such Truth?
Well, every town & city has them, they meet Sunday mornings, and it is, Truly, their Number One concern.

;-)

Texas Songwriter: "I don't consider Smashing Lists and Wikipedia appropriate references for propounded authorities to make your points."

Smashing List is entirely appropriate for the simple point I was making -- namely that there are a large number of different historical ideas floating around "out there" for how life may have first begun on earth.
Since none are scientifically confirmed, all are worthy of at least a quick review.
Besides, I thought those graphics were pretty nice, and that's the reason I posted them all.

But please, please note: in addition to the nice graphics from "Smashing Lists", I also provided links to two more sources

Live Science's list of seven (electric spark, community clay, deep-sea vents, chilly start, RNA world, simple beginnings and panspermia).
Addy Pross' 2012 book, "What is Life, How Chemistry Becomes Biology".
It is a serious book which goes into considerable depth on latest abiogenesis ideas.

In sum, I provided you with not just bullet-point lists of ideas, but also serious discussion behind some of those ideas.
So, what exactly is your problem with that?

On the quotes from Wikipedia, first please note, they all reference sources for their data.
Second, my point here is to illustrate, regarding Haeckel's epigram -- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- that there are, in fact, two sides to this story.
Yes, Haeckel was controversial during his life-time, accused then of fraud & hoax, claims which he denied.
And yes, Haeckel's idea is today considered obsolete & defunct.
But Haeckel also has his modern defenders, which the Wiki quotes point out.
These defenders do not say that Haeckel was totally right in his conclusions, only that he was not totally wrong, and not deliberately fraudulent.
And that is my point also, which seems to me rather self evident.

Perhaps you can accept an analogy?
Do we condemn Christopher Columbus today because in all of his voyages he believed & reported he had reached India and met Hindu Indians?
No, of course not -- we gloss over that, focusing instead on Columbus the great and courageous explorer, whose exploits excited western imaginations for centuries, until every corner of the Earth has been explored, mapped & analyzed for whatever data it might provide us.

Today we don't call Columbus a hoax & fraud because he made history's most colossal navigation error!
That's all I'm saying about Haeckel.
So what exactly, please say, is your problem with it?

Texas Songwriter: "I gave you 'word for word' quotes of authorities contemporary with Haeckel as well as others like Gould moving up to the year 2000 in NATURE and they fell on deaf ears."

Your quotes certainly did not "fall on deaf ears," I fully acknowledge the controversy -- merely provided other data to show you there are actually two sides to this story, and Haeckel deserves better than categorical condemnations.

Indeed, one of your quotes came from 1995 Michael Richardson, about which the wiki article reminds us:

"Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.
[30][31] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud."

In short, even your man Richardson is willing to give Haeckel some benefit of the doubt, and so am I.
What exactly is your problem with that?

Texas Songwriter: "Then you disparage Lewontin tangentially, his age and his comment, despite the highests probability that his accomplishments at Harvard would dwarf both yours and my accomplishments in science."

Now, dear FRiend, you really do need to go back and re-read my post, paying more attention this time.
In fact, I in no way disparaged Lewontin!
I merely pointed out that he is a well known evolutionary biologist of very long standing (age 85), and so there is no possible way his words can be misconstrued as an assault on evolution theory.

Instead, I said, his words were likely descriptions of today's average citizens -- those Rush calls "low information voters" who might confuse "science", writ large, with some form of religion.
Obviously, that can't possibly include you, FRiend, since any serious FReeper qualifies as "top 1%" of informed voters, and you, Texas Songwriter, must be pretty near the "top 1%" of informed FReepers!

So, far from criticizing Lowentin, I was trying to say his words are doubtless accurate regarding some people.

Texas Songwriter: "Then you reference me as a 'low information voter' or on par with that invective."

Clearly, you mis-read my point.
So I'm requesting you to re-read it, understanding the term "low information voter" certainly does not apply to you, and then see if it doesn't make more sense.

Thanks!

Texas Songwriter post #260: "We people keep alleging fraud and deceit by Haeckel regarding ontology recapitulating phylogeny....

Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity."

And up to a point, that is neither scientific theory nor law, but rather observed & confirmed fact.
The problem was that both Haeckel and his critics misunderstood what they were looking at, and therein lies controversy.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings.
As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions."

Yes, so Haeckel was accused at the time, but he denied it, and it turns out he produced several versions of his drawings, some less egregious than others.
Richardson, whom you quote here, studied the matter in great detail, and decided that Haeckel actually did the best he could, with what he knew at the time.
Not, of course, saying Haeckel was correct, only that his mistakes were honest, and then later corrected.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "By the 1920's the 'law of phyologeny was falling out of favor among embryologists who knew, but the educates kept the lie in school books for indoctrination reasons into Darwinism.
Stephen Jay Gould said 'the biogenetic las fell only when it became unfashionable.'
Historian of Science, Nicholas Rasmussen agreed with Gould, putting it this way, 'All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the FIRST Days of the laws acceptance.' "

So, I gather this is the root-source of your angst & anger at Haeckel: that his alleged "biogenetic law" was, first, not even a "law", second, was a mistaken interpretation of observed facts which should have been clear from the beginning, and third, even after being rejected by serious scientists, his "law" continued to be propagated in school books for many decades afterwards.
So, "you people" are angry at Haeckel for refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, and at science-in-general for failing to immediately purge those mistakes from children's text-books, right?

Well, if I've stated your problem correctly, then, of course, I agree with you -- obviously some scientists suffer from the same problem as some news reporters: if a story is just "too good not to be true", they don't examine it very closely.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "Wilhelm His accused Haeckel of SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION.
In 1995 Michael Richardson noted that 'the embryos drawn were not consistent with other data on the development of those species.'
He further said, the drawings show,'a clear misrepresentation of the truth.' "

But here is where we need to remember both sides, because both His and Richardson are mentioned in the wiki article, which puts them in a different light:

"Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.[30][31]
There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud.
It was later said that 'there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.'

In other words, it seems that Haeckel may not have been the only one stretching the truth.
So what, exactly, are we looking at here?
Well, I see an academic squabble, typical of many academic squabbles, where opposing sides become personally invested in a particular viewpoint and push things too far.
In the end, neither side understands it correctly, and nobody outside the academic squabble-community really cares either way.

Texas Songwriter post #266: "My main reply was to set the record straight on your assertion regarding , "You people claim fraud and deceit.
I thought that was very unfair and a clear misrepresentation of the facts...
We people just want to have a hearing and a saying of the facts.....all of them, not just assertions regarding the the biogenetic law regarding recapitulation."

But don't you understand?
How can I say this more simply: nobody defends a so-called biogenetic law.
Nobody is arguing in favor of it, because everybody "gets" that it was wrong.
But only "you people" continue to want to keep on fighting the battle.
For you, it's still a big issue, you can't just let it go and move-on to something else.
All I'm saying is, give Haeckel a little credit for accomplishment, just as we credit Columbus for finding America, never mind he thought it was India!

Texas Songwriter post #266: "You did not address the You people misrepresentation.
It seemed to just fly by you."

But my "you people" was not a misrepresentation, because only "you people" wish to continue fighting a battle which was long since settled: Haeckel's "Law" is today defunct, tossed into the ash-can of bad ideas, with only a small residual credit allowed for pointing out an interesting fact, namely that fetuses of more closely related species look much the same in early development, only growing species-unique features later on.
Even less closely related species still look remarkably similar early on.

Texas Songwriter post #266: "Your comments I found laden with presupposition to the degree that it seems to blind you to other points of view."

Well, what you blithely call "presumptions" I consider to be highly informed conclusions (if not fact), based on many years of study and careful thought.
And, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see the reasons why.

Have a happy holiday!

Of course the difference is in the code, not the letters themselves. But for evolution to happen, gains DO have to happen in the DNA. You keep trying to bring up examples where the DNA expressed different variants within itself. All of us have variations and recessive qualities in our DNA that is typically not expressed but can be brought out at times. But this is not a DNA gain. It is just the DNA using info it already has. But unless sea creatures had all the info in their DNA already to code for winged and legged creatures, this argument falls apart. Oh but positive DNA changes came on small and gradual you say? Then how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving? You failed to answer this question. Also, there is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier.

About fakes. Nebraska man was just an example. The popular display of horse evolution is also an example. Piltdown man and Java Man were also fakes/mistakes. And ramapithecus, which scientists claimed proved apes walked upright, was just pieces of jaws and teeth. Lucy is also another one. Her skeleton matches that of a regular chimpanzee. It didn't come with a head the skull is from imagination. The pelvis (already fractured) was CUT apart and glued back together to make it look more human like. The footprints that scientists claim went with it were from a layer BELOW Lucy and if you look at them are regular human footprints. So Lucy was not an ancestor of mankind after all. Please explain to me how all this stuff is scientific? Or was it just simply a "mistake"? Also, you say those list of skulls you have on your picture are all in order of their date/age? Oh really? You do know that the dating system is highly flawed you know. Often times, several dates will come out for one specimen. And which one do the "scientists" pick? The one that fits their assumptions of course. Did you know that scientists got dates of 169 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows that had happened only in 1800 and 1801? Awful accurate isn't it? So not only is your line up of skulls likely to be misdated (they keep changing the dates on those things all the time...you should know that at least), they were all found on different continents in different layers and yet you expect me to believe that they form a legitimate line of descent? LOLOLOLOLOL

However no new discovery has ever challenged the basic idea of evolution theory.

That has got to be one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. What about all the thousands of instances of more “highly evolved” organisms being found in undisturbed layers BELOW their “less evolved” ancestors? Or organisms being found in layers that are dated to be millions of years before the organism appeared? (Like pollen or crayfish for example) Also what about petrified trees that are found cutting through numerous layers or rock and coal that all supposedly took between thousands and millions of years to lay down? Like the trees were just going to sit there and not rot meanwhile? And what about fossilized remains that still contain soft tissue? Soft, flexible and transparent tissue was found in a t-rex that was supposedly 68 million years old. Also, a fossilized squid was found with its ink sack still inky. One of the people who found it said that the ink was still such that you could have painted a picture with it. Also, how come life appears in the fossil record all of a sudden with a lot of diversity & complexity, & without any predecessors. Where are the transitional fossils? Where are the sea creatures with partially formed legs, or creatures with partially evolved lungs or eyes or bone structures? In each case (amphibians, reptiles & mammals) the fossil record shows that each type showed up abruptly. All assumed transitional creatures are absent. The fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

These aren’t the only examples of oddities that have been found & ignored by the media & evolutionary scientists. Human skeletons & tools have been found deep down in coal mines. In Paluxy, Texas human footprints were found in the mud (now limestone rock), next to the footprints of a 3-toed theropod, & in a couple places even overlapped each other. Pictures of dinosaurs were painted on stone-age cave walls. Human footprints found in fossilized trilobite beds. These are just a few in the long list of anomalies.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. What does falsifiable mean? That there is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Global warming as presented by global warming alarmists is not a real theory, for example, as it is not very falsifiable, because it’s proponents claim everything, even the proof against it as proof for it (such as widespread cooling). A tenable theory also needs to be able to make predictions that are later proven to be true. Darwin predicted that thousands of transitional forms would soon be found to back up his theory of the evolution of one species into another and we have yet to find a fossil of a creature in the process of evolution. Everything in the fossil record shows up abruptly, there are no transitional forms. Evolution, contrary to being the scientific law that many try to claim it is, is really in fact a highly untenable theory with numerous findings that fly in its face.

P.S Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Was one of those busy weeks. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Of course the difference is in the code, not the letters themselves.
But for evolution to happen, gains DO have to happen in the DNA."

So why do you keep saying "gains" or "additions", when you just admitted there's no such thing?
In strict scientific terms, there are no "gains", no "additions" and no "losses", only changes from one set of instructions, to something a bit different.
Whether these changes can be classified as "gains" or "losses" by humans is strictly a function of natural selection -- does a DNA change help or hurt an individual's chances for survival?

For a very simple example, consider the mutations which cause sickle-cell anemia -- yes, they help individuals to survive malaria, but at the cost of shortened, less healthy lives.
So, is that a "gain" or "loss" -- all depends on your perspective.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You keep trying to bring up examples where the DNA expressed different variants within itself.
All of us have variations and recessive qualities in our DNA that is typically not expressed but can be brought out at times.
But this is not a DNA gain.
It is just the DNA using info it already has."

You ignore the basic facts.
The fact is that today DNA analysis can be used to convict criminals of murder, or prove a man's paternity of a child.
This same type of analysis can establish just when, recent or ancient, certain mutations appeared in a person's DNA.

The fact is that a small number (a handful out of over three billion total base pairs), of more-or-less random DNA mutations appear in every generation -- mostly harmless mutations -- which can be tracked back to the first generations where they appeared.
Such mutations tell us which ethnic groups are closely related, which more distantly related, and approximately when each group's common ancestors split apart.

All this is not just evolution "theory", it's evolution fact -- observed, confirmed facts.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...unless sea creatures had all the info in their DNA already to code for winged and legged creatures, this argument falls apart."

Of course, ancient sea creatures had no "land-creature DNA", but they did have, for example, fins which even today some fish use to "walk" on land.
Some of these ancient appendages looked more like fins than legs & feet, but others are more obviously legs & feet than residual fins.
And the same thing happens in reverse, when land-creatures learned, adapted & evolved back into sea-creatures.
In no case was DNA ever "gained" or "lost", only changed in ways which allowed individuals to more or less successfully adapt to their life's conditions.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Oh but positive DNA changes came on small and gradual you say?
Then how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving?
How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?"

Today's living creatures, plus fossil records and DNA analysis tell us a lot in answer to such questions.
Just looking at today's creatures we see many, many "transitional forms" between, for example, those which live in the sea, and those on land.
And fossil records, incomplete as they are, provide many, many more "transitional forms".
If your question here is strictly internal-organs, then every "lower form" of life provides examples of simpler, more basic organs, organs which are steadily more advanced in higher animals.
For just one example, "breathing" and blood circulation amongst insects is as basic as can be, so basic it helps limit the natural size insects can grow.
But even insects are vastly more complex than, for example, sponges or star-fish.
Point is: terms like "advanced" or "simple" are strictly relative to others -- in a world of sponges & star-fish, even the most primitive fish is highly advanced.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, there is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.
The chromosome count within each species is fixed. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed.
If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate.
The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.
The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier."

Careful DNA analysis of human versus great-ape chromosomes shows that in humans, two ape chromosomes (#12 & #13) fused making our one chromosome #2, our second-largest chromosome.
This chromosomal difference is said to make interbreeding practically impossible.
We can see other examples of the same thing -- horses with 64 chromosomes, donkey's with 62, African & Indian elephants with 56 chromosomes but woolly-mammoths with 58.
So the splitting or fusing of chromosomes is not so unusual, though so far as I know, just how it happens is not known.

In ancient times everyone believed, and today many still do, including me, that all reproduction is accomplished with God's help.
Seems to me that changing chromosome counts is one way to be certain beneficial mutations don't "revert to type" by interbreeding with others less endowed...

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "About fakes.
Nebraska man was just an example.
The popular display of horse evolution is also an example...."

But your list of alleged "fakes" is mostly itself a fake, hoax & fraud.
You use lies to accuse others of lying, so what's up with that?

Of course, nobody denies that all humans -- scientists or otherwise -- are capable honest mistakes.
But most of us, at least, are also born with the "honesty gene", which drives us to correct our own, and more importantly, others mistakes.
So doubtless some mistakes were made in past analyses and preparations of fossils, but your accusations of "fake" are themselves lies, which you offer up uncritically for sake of... of what?
Doubtless, an ideology less than totally committed to the truth, I'd suppose.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Please explain to me how all this stuff is scientific?
Or was it just simply a "mistake"?"

What is certainly unscientific are the lies you repeat against science.
The facts are quite different from those you suggest.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, you say those list of skulls you have on your picture are all in order of their date/age? Oh really?
You do know that the dating system is highly flawed you know.
Often times, several dates will come out for one specimen.
And which one do the "scientists" pick?
The one that fits their assumptions of course."

Regarding dating of ancient materials: what's certainly true here is that scientists cannot always depend on a single method to consistently provide accurate results; and so they must take input from every available method, before deciding which methods provide the best dating.
And there are, all told, dozens of different methods available.
When several converge on a date for some item, that is likely the range to be selected.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Did you know that scientists got dates of 169 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows that had happened only in 1800 and 1801?
Awful accurate isn't it?"

A case of G.I.G.O. -- if you provide a dating lab with less than completely accurate information about samples, it will result in "garbage out".
And, the converse is true: when you provide complete and accurate information along with your samples, results will usually be consistent and accurate.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "So not only is your line up of skulls likely to be misdated (they keep changing the dates on those things all the time...you should know that at least), they were all found on different continents in different layers and yet you expect me to believe that they form a legitimate line of descent?
LOLOLOLOLOL"

No, not "line of descent", but they are certainly "transitional forms" which you people keep claiming don't exist.
And why do you keep saying "found on different continents", as if that mattered?
The fact is, the earliest remains were found in Africa, but more recent remains (i.e., Neanderthals) are found in Europe and Asia -- so what exactly is your problem with that?

As for the accuracy of dating of those particular skulls, it is totally consistent with the dating of everything else we know about earth's "deep-time" history.
Of course, for people who deny there is such a thing as "deep-time", you are totally free, if you wish, to hand-wave all that evidence away.
What you can't do is pick & chose to accept just some evidence that might suit your beliefs, but not the rest.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "That has got to be one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard.
What about all the thousands of instances of more “highly evolved” organisms being found in undisturbed layers BELOW their “less evolved” ancestors?"

Sorry, pal, but the only "arrogance" at play here is your own, and that of your teachers, insisting their religion-based science-opinions somehow invalidate all of real science.
They don't.

The fact is, there is not a single scientifically confirmed example of fossils found where they don't belong -- i.e., of undisturbed human and dinosaur remains found originally buried together.
Yes, sure, some natural events can put unrelated fossils in the same geological stratum -- examples from plate tectonics and erosion relocations come to mind.
But none has ever been confirmed scientifically as being "out of place" in its original burial.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And what about fossilized remains that still contain soft tissue?
Soft, flexible and transparent tissue was found in a t-rex that was supposedly 68 million years old."

First, you must remember, there is far less genuinely "soft tissue" confirmed than is sometimes alleged.
We are really dealing here with only a handful of small examples.
Second, remember, all of this alleged "dino soft-tissue" is still controversial, not yet fully confirmed as being what's claimed, pending the finding of a good many more such examples.
Third, the tissues found are a simple organic material called "collagen", lacking DNA, but does seem to confirm dinosaurs' relation to modern birds like chickens.
Finally, the preservative preventing decomposition seems to be iron in the soil, and demonstrates convincingly that under very rare conditions, organic material can survive a very long time indeed.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, how come life appears in the fossil record all of a sudden with a lot of diversity & complexity, & without any predecessors.
Where are the transitional fossils?"

Of course, every fossil, without exception, is a "transitional form" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.

But, perhaps you've heard that dinosaurs disappeared around 65 million years ago?
That sounds like a long time ago, doesn't it?
And perhaps you even learned that mammals arose from little mouse-like creatures under the dinosaurs, to everything you see today, during the past 65 million years?
So, you'd admit that 65 million years seems like a pretty long time for creatures to adapt, change and evolve, right?

So, now consider what's called the "Cambrian Explosion" around 530 million years ago.
It actually began around 580 million years ago, with the first complex organisms' remains, and lasted until around 420 million years ago, with the first toothed fish fossils.
That's over 160 million years of "explosion", more than twice as long since dinosaurs disappeared.

And the "explosion" never stooped, except for periods of mass extinctions, related-but-new species continued to appear in fossil records ever since.

Finally, remember that, based on the number of species alive today (i.e. 50,000 vertebrate species) and the average rate of evolution (a million years per species), our fossil record, large as it is, clearly represents less than 1% of all species which ever existed.
So the appearance of "suddenness" in that record is largely an illusion based on the 99% of "missing link" species.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "All assumed transitional creatures are absent.
The fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving."

First of all, the numbers of "known fossils" is large, but certainly not "billions" -- thousands or tens of thousands would be accurate, speaking of larger critters, like dinosaurs, birds & whales.

Second, the fact is that every fossil, without exception is a "transitional form" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
That means: every fossil can be compared for similarities and differences to those which went before and those which came after.

So there are no -- zero, zip, nada -- non-transitional fossils.
All belong to known biological classifications dating back to the earliest days of complex life on earth.
All have "transitional structures in the process of evolving."
The fact that we've found fewer than 1% of all fossil species which ever existed does not make any fossil less "transitional".

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "These aren’t the only examples of oddities that have been found & ignored by the media & evolutionary scientists.
Human skeletons & tools have been found deep down in coal mines....
These are just a few in the long list of anomalies."

Yes, certainly, and if you read the magazines found in super-market check-out lines, you can find hundreds of similar new stories, every week.
But the fact remains that not one such story has ever been strongly confirmed scientifically.
Of course, you might blame scientific "preconceived ideas", but I think it's just a matter of very few scientists who actually read the The National Enquirer, Star, The Globe, National Examiner, ¡Mira!, Sun, Radar or Weekly World News. ;-)

So, maybe there's an untapped source of new scientific data which you could apply for government grants to help fund research in?

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "A tenable theory also needs to be able to make predictions that are later proven to be true.
Darwin predicted that thousands of transitional forms would soon be found to back up his theory of the evolution of one species into another and we have yet to find a fossil of a creature in the process of evolution."

In fact, every creature, living and fossilized, "is in the process of evolution".
You are in the process of evolution -- you are not exactly the same as your parents, and your children are (or will be) not the same as you.
They will be slightly changed, sometimes for the worse, but occasionally for the better, and that is the beginning, the root-source of long-term evolution.
It's not a "theory", it's an observed, confirmed fact.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Everything in the fossil record shows up abruptly, there are no transitional forms.
Evolution, contrary to being the scientific law that many try to claim it is, is really in fact a highly untenable theory with numerous findings that fly in its face."

Look, when you're hoping to debate scientific subjects, first and foremost you need to pay careful attention to scientific definitions.
So evolution theory was not, is not and never will be a scientific "law" -- by definition, it can't be.

But evolution certainly is a valid scientific hypothesis which has been confirmed innumerable times, making it a recognized theory.
And that's about as good as it can ever get... except for the fact that much of evolution theory is also observed and confirmed, making those elements facts.

Yes, any theory, including evolution, can be, and some have been, falsified, which then demotes it back down to discredited hypothesis.
Has evolution theory ever been seriously falsified?
No, never, but it is daily reconfirmed by scientific observations of its predictions.

Are there still many unconfirmed hypotheses relating to evolution theory?
Of course, most notably in the area of numerous Origen of Life hypotheses, none of which have ever been strongly confirmed, and indeed, may not ever be confirmed.
Only time can tell...

(sorry for not replying sooner...I usually don't get much time to be on the computer for more than a few minutes at a time except on the weekends.)

only changes from one set of instructions, to something a bit different

No matter how much you try to weasel word it, if an organism somehow manages to have the DNA coding for legs and feet and toes, which its ancestors didn’t have, then yes, it gained DNA information.

Some of these ancient appendages looked more like fins than legs & feet, but others are more obviously legs & feet than residual fins

Is there any actual proof out there for this evolutionary claim? Find me a fossil in the process of evolving from a sea creature into a land creature. Evolutionists used to think the coelacanth was an example, but there are still coelacanths today and there are no fossils to back up this claim.

If your question here is strictly internal-organs, then every "lower form" of life provides examples of simpler, more basic organs, organs which are steadily more advanced in higher animals.

Of course a fish or a cow or a human has a more complex stomach for example than a worm. But that is not what I’m talking about. I don’t like how you dodged the question. These creatures are all fully functional . Where are the fossil creatures in the process of evolving structures that are not yet completely fully functional? Where is the fossil sea creature with nubs of legs beginning to form? Or with toes and fingers becoming visible? Or with tiny wing nubs beginning to show? There aren’t any. And you also failed to explain how such a deformed creature, whose new apparatuses were not yet evolved enough to give it an evolutionary edge, would somehow be the fittest in the survival arena.

horses with 64 chromosomes, donkey's with 62

Yes, but the offspring of such unions were the chromosomes don’t match up exactly either are complete flops or the offspring is sterile. Can’t expect any evolution from sterile offspring.

but your accusations of "fake" are themselves lies

Not sure what you mean by this. I hope you are not denying that these ones I listed all turned out to be fakes. Oh the scientists just made a “mistake?” You bet they did. Was it on accident? Not in most of the cases I listed. They were deliberately trying to force the fossil record to support evolution even when it didn’t. That’s why they based a whole ape-man-who-walked-upright off of a tooth later found to be a pig’s. That is why they charts on horse evolution, though the progression has been proven false and inaccurate years ago were still taught for years afterword as gospel truth and in some places are still passed off as scientific fact.

What is certainly unscientific are the lies you repeat against science

Al Gore would say the same thing to someone who didn’t buy his line on global warming “science,” which is just as scientific as the theory of evolution.

if you provide a dating lab with less than completely accurate information about samples, it will result in "garbage out".

So you mean by simply telling the labs that the rocks were from a Hawaiian lava flow and where they were found was not enough? They had to tell them the date of the flow too? What would be the point of the dating process then? The thing is, that just like the people dating the rocks from lava flow didn’t know when the flow had happened (because they weren’t told), likewise people dating fossils don’t know the age of the fossils either and simply use whichever dates best fit their presuppositions. The lack of information we have about many found fossils also will contribute to GIGO. Also carbon dating the claims to date fossils at millions of years is highly controversial. C-14, which is essential to carbon dating, decays in only thousands of years, not millions. According to evolutionary theory, there should be no C-14 in dinosaur bones.

No, not "line of descent", but they are certainly "transitional forms" which you people keep claiming don't exist.

Not transitional forms. Those are all either men, apes that we see today, or extinct species of apes. For them to be transitional forms, they cannot be found in the same layers or in layers below human remains, as some of them were (such is the case for homo habilis and australopithecus for instance). In the western US the fossilized remains of 8 perfectly normal humans were found in the same rock layers as dinosaurs had been found in nearby. Also, in my last post I posted a picture of human and dinosaur footprints found together. These footprints were found in Texas, and the footprints cross each other. An iron hammer with partially coalified wooden handle was found in Lower Cretaceous Limestone in Texas, supposedly 140 million years old (the time of the dinosaurs). A human handprint was found in the Glen Rose limestone which is designated as Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old and contemporary with the dinosaurs.

all of this alleged "dino soft-tissue" is still controversial, not yet fully confirmed as being what's claimed

Soft tissue has been found too many times for this to be a good explanation. It has been found in a t-rex, two or more hadrosaurs, a mosasaur, a squid and other fossils. You can chose to ignore them or wake up and realize that it didn’t take millions of years for these fossils to form.

Of course, every fossil, without exception, is a "transitional form" between its ancestors and descendants, if any

What utter rot. You are now using an evolutionary presupposition to prove an evolutionary point? Very poor circular reasoning. I think you are doing it to try and cover for the lack of transitional fossils found that Darwin predicted would be found. So since we can’t rind real proof we’ll claim now that everything is proof? If evolution is really true then the gaps in the fossil record are so huge they can’t be ignored. The fossil record, instead of proving evolution to be true by showing a slow progression of forms from simple to complex with the complex being higher in the strata than the simple, actually shows organism appearing all at once with no transitional forms to back them up, and deposited in layers that don’t match the evolutionary timeline. The fossil record proves all Darwin’s assumptions about it to be false. not one such story has ever been strongly confirmed scientifically

Uh-huh. Such a convenient excuse (which needless to say is false) to try and make critics look like idiots and cover up for the lack of real evidence in favor or your theory. Al Gore does the same thing and with similar effect, although more proof has been coming out against him lately.

You are in the process of evolution -- you are not exactly the same as your parents, and your children are (or will be) not the same as you.

Microevolution; Yes. But not macroevolution.

Has evolution theory ever been seriously falsified? No, never, but it is daily reconfirmed by scientific observations of its predictions.

That has to be one of the biggest lies I have ever heard, especially since after the discussion we have had it is clear that there are numerous findings that fly in the face of Darwinian evolution. It appears that you are not really interested in the truth, but are content to simply cherry pick the evidence. Further discussion is apparently useless, and I would rather not waste my time trying to present facts to someone who doesn’t really care about them. Although we disagree, I would like to part on friendly terms and I hope you become more open to the truth in time. I hope you have a nice week.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.