Thanks, Dave. I will now present 3 major lines of evidence for evolution. When you see this (1) that is there to denote the passage. A reference will be posted at the bottom.
Evidence #1 The Fossil Record
When you start off with a 5 toed horse like animal, then higher up in the strata find a 4 toed horse like animal, then a 3 toed, then a single toed, what does that mean to you? The Geologic column is riddled with example after example of this. Here is the infamous horse series:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
Here are other examples:
Elephants
http://allelephants.com/allinfo/evol.php
Whales
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03
Titanothere
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evo_54
The Sea Sloths
http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/the-giant-swimming-sloths-of-south-america/
Why is the fossil record littered with sequences that just so happen to be in an order that makes them look like they evolved? I cannot make sense of it without evolution. In fact, I think anyone who saw these sequences would suggest evolution, had it not already been proposed so long ago.
Evidence #2 ERV’s
Another Major line of Evidence is the Endogenous retroviruses (ERV’s). About 8 percent of our genome is made up of these ERV’s(1). On a rare occasion a virus will insert itself into it’s host’s genome at random(2), and the host’s descendants will inherit this and have the virus in their genome. Our genome is 3 billion base pairs, so it is extremely unlikely that any creature would share the exact same virus in the exact same place in the genome. But yet humans and primates do have the same viruses in the same places in their genome.(3)
1. http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/67
2. The Blue Lollipops show the regions that HIV has inserted:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/2/8/figure/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020234.g001-L.jpg
Full article:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020234
NOTE: When it says “distinct target site preference” it does not refer to one specific place, but rather a very wide range of places (the gene, the promoter of the gene).
3. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
Evidence #3 Embryological Evidence
Now, the first thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I am NOT referring to Haeckel’s work nor to his long discarded theory. Ontogeny does not recapitalate Phylogeny, but there are some interesting similarities in development which I believe are best explained by evolution.
Mammal Kidneys
Mammal Embryos develop 3 sets of kidneys(1). The first, pronephros, is the same set found in primitive fish like Lampreys.(2)
After 3.5 weeks, the mammal embryo replaces it. The second set, the mesonephros, is the same set found in higher fish and amphibians. In human males it gives rise to urogenital structures, while in females the remnants are vestigial. The third set (Metanephros) is the set which develops and becomes the adults set of kidneys, and it is the same set found in mammals and birds.
Other Evidence
Snakes as well as Dolphins are known to develop legs as embryos, only to reabsorb them later. (3)
Whales Develop hair as embryos, only to discard it later (except for the nosehair) (4)
1. http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/210labs/kidney2.html
2. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061539/pronephros
All Kidneys are listed here:
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Mesonephros&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0
3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex3
4. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/94_origin_of_whales_and_the_power_12_30_1899.asp
Thank you Dave, you now have the floor. : )
13 posted on 10/18/2007 11:30:45 PM EDT by AiGBusted
To: AiGBusted
Thanks, Ryan. Your post would have to clear at 11:30. I'll be reading, responding, rebutting and refuting, probably at least within 48 hours, probably sooner.
16 posted on 10/18/2007 11:33:47 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
To: AiGBusted
Good evening, Ryan. (Or morning, wherever you are.)
I’ve begun compiling a response, I hope to have it done by tomorrow, but I don’t know what the day may hold, and I’ve unexpectedly acquired several weighty but pleasant responsibilities in the past couple of days.
You’ve rather flippantly thrown out allusions to some rather complex and detailed issues such as whale evolution, which is why it may take a little while.
71 posted on 10/20/2007 1:52:58 AM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
To: AiGBusted; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ...
When you start off with a 5 toed horse like animal, then higher up in the strata find a 4 toed horse like animal, then a 3 toed, then a single toed, what does that mean to you?First, may I point out that you are assuming that the geologic strata is constant and accurately reflective of static dates. I do not consider this assumption to be sound. Second, you assume that the number of toes is an indication of sequence, as if the toes sprouted one-by-one, and finding them in ascending order indicates ordered evolution, which is also an unsound premise. But let's back up a little bit.
Whale evolution is one of the more incredible (literally, not credible) tenets of modern evolutionary theory. University of Michigan paleontologist Philip D. Gingerich was quoted in National Geographic as saying that whales are "so different from other warm-blooded, furry things that it's been a mystery both how they came to live in the sea and what ancestors they might have come from on land."
The number of changes required for a land-based mammal to metamorphosize into a whale present an astronomical range of difficulties. As suggested by Dr. David Dr. Berlinski, skin, breathing, lactation, eye, hearing and salivary functions must redesign themselves, as well as digestive and feeding habits. (Not to mention an entirely new, complex system of communication, which might be considered a tad more complex than, say, "moo".) Berlinski calculated somewhere around 50,000 interdependent changes had to take place for all of this to happen.
Now we come to another question. What did whales evolve from? Scientists still disagree over whether or not whales descended from mesonychians or artiodactyls.1 Scientists going on grounds of morphology theorized descent from mesonychians. DNA and genetic techniques suggested the artiodactyls.
Scientists continue to disagree on this - in 2002, there were a couple of studies done that disagreed with each other.
The relationship between artiodactyls and cetaceans was recently addressed in two morphological/paleontological studies. The conclusions of these studies were inconsistent. Gingerich et al., in agreement with molecular results, concluded that cetaceans have their origin within Artiodactyla, whereas Thewissen et al. inferred that Artiodactyla and Cetacea were sister groups. Test of the latter phylogeny relative to the best mtg tree found the latter relationship as highly improbable. Although the morphological conclusions may initially seem incongruent, both might be correct if Archaeoceti is paraphyletic. Archaeocete paraphyly has been suggested and it is possible that the study by Thewissen et al. focused on taxa that do not form a monophyletic group together with extant cetaceans.2Dr. Philip D. Gingerich, well-known paleontologist (he discovered Pakicetus) was convinced of the second theory about artiodactyls3, but Kenneth D. Rose, with the Program for Functional Anatomy and Evolution (Johns Hopkins), points out that there are substantial discrepancies with the theory. He said, "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls. Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution."4 As late as 2005, scientists were still questioning the serious question of whether or not Artiodactyla is paraphyletic (composed of some but not all members descending from a common ancestor). Scientists in the Proceedings from the National Academy of Science write:
Molecular comparisons indicate that Cetacea should be the modern sister group of hippos. This finding implies the existence of a fossil lineage linking cetaceans (first known in the early Eocene) to hippos (first known in the middle Miocene). The relationships of hippos within Artiodactyla are challenging, and the immediate affinities of Hippopotamidae have been studied by biologists for almost two centuries without resolution.5
The paper also notes that "the position of Ruminantia [cows and other hoofed animals with four stomachs] is a central question, still to be solved." In other words, scientists still don't have the a spine on which to hang all of these fossils they are trumpeting.
The entire chain of progression between whale species is that massive game of connect-the-dots again. Except, instead of the puppy dog or ice cream cones we drew in connect-the-dot activity books as children, these dots have vast white gaps between them, and the zig-zagging connections are a far cry from a complete picture, let alone one that makes sense. You may read other creationist responses/rebuttals regarding whale evolution in the following links:
A whale of a tale
Whale evolution? (Note that some evolutionists here on Free Republic have asserted that, since this was written, there have been more documented finds of Ambulocetus natans which validate the fossil line, and which Dr. Sarfati and Answers in Genesis have not addressed.)
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic
Not at all like a whale - Problems with Pakicetus
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution (Published prior to scientists jumping the mesonychian bandwagon)
The world of whales
I do wish I could give the same treatment to your other examples, but since you only gave links, and since it seems our local evolutionist gallery is waiting with baited breath for a response, I fear that is not feasible if I wish to remain within the 48-hour estimation of mine, which some have somehow been twisted into a deadline of sorts, seemingly constituting a failure of mine to exceed. (I note that they demand evolution itself be given years to sort out their new finds, and the continual declaration that "real science takes time" and yet we observe an unwillingness to accord the same privilage to me.)
As I have demonstrated, scientists now believe whales came from artiodactyls, hoofed, or two-toed animals, which refutes your use of whales in the evidence.
I will be addressing further elements of Evidence #1, as well as #2 and 3 in the very-near future - please withhold a formal response until I am finished.
Regards,
-Dave
102 posted on 10/20/2007 3:24:05 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
To: AiGBusted
Elephants are another interesting story. Your own link is very ambiguous, and references both classification problems (shouldn't be too difficult if they fit neatly in evolution) as well as the unique structure for the elephant trunk. How did this trunk evolve? There are 40,000+ muscles involved, and it is useful for anything from ripping trees to blowing water to breathing under water to feeding itself. How and when and why did it evolve?
Elephant lungs are another very unique trait. According to scientists, elephant lungs are practically a physiological impossibility; "the differences in pressure exerted by the outside air and the deep water should cause the blood vessels in the lining of the lungs to burst." According to the same article, elephants have a lung structure unlike those of any other four-legged animal; no other mammal has that kind of lung structure.1
There is very little information from the link you've given to judge the accuracy of dates or the nature of the finds supporting this supposed linkage of ancestry, which I already know to be flimsy anyway from other sources.
Please note that there is little disagreement among creationists about whether or not certain species descended from parent ancestors, and that this chain of descent likely did bring about changes. Therefore, mammoths, mastadons and so forth were likely members of the same kind. So while not accepting the ancient eons of time that evolutionists posit, nor that elephants came from extinct pig-like creatures, there is very little problem with accepting morphological differences in certain kinds through the years.
Here are some further articles addressing the idea of elephant evolution:
The confusion of elephant and mammoth classification
Scientific rebuttal to Talk.Origins' claims
Discovery Channel's Tell Tales Of Elephant Evolution - DarwinismWatch dissents from Discovery
The elephant kind
125 posted on 10/20/2007 10:35:43 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.") [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
These titanotheres you've linked to, are rather obscure, and from the link you've given me, do not defy creationism in the slightest. Mere changes within a created kind are not incongruous with creationism, and the titanotheres example merely demonstrates changes (cause and reason unknown) for a horn changing length.
Horse evolution has been a pack of fun. Originally, scientists posited the idea of orthogenesis, meaning they all descended from one ancestor. Then they figured out that the evidence didn't match their textbooks, and (as they are wont to do) they had to scrap the old books and write new ones. The old theory was rather amusing, though. Different finds, out of order, scattered across different continents were somehow supposed to form a solid line of descent?
It's just another game of connect-the-dots with evolutionists. Don't take my word for it. Scientists themselves admit that, "while the overall picture of equid evolution is well known, the details are surprisingly poorly understood" noting that "no consensus on the number of equid species or even the number of lineages that existed" in the Americas.1
Meanwhile, even TalkOrigins admits that "The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus."2
Since it is one of special meaning to evolutionists, there's no shortage of creationist rebuttals, of which I list a few here:
The non-evolution of the horse
Horse non-sense
National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot — Again! (Scroll down)
What about the evolution of the horse?
Icons Still Standing (Jonathan Wells rings in)
132 posted on 10/20/2007 11:40:51 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.") [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That about wraps it up for Evidence #1. I will contact you privately about expectations of my next responses, to avoid the peanut gallery’s reactions.
Regards,
-Dave
136 posted on 10/20/2007 11:51:34 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")