This mineral deposit is quite extensive at Crystal geyser and a LOT more colorful than this!
The pipe is much shorter now..........
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
This is, in part, a misrepresentation of how evolution works. "All but the best adapted" do not die out. All real populations contain many variations.
Simple illustration: with the exception of identical siblings, all humans are genetically unique. this is not an unusual condition; it is the rule in populations.
That's really an odd kind of statement. In computer programming, removing dead or useless code is considered an improvement. It actually take more "design" to produce a lean program than a bloated one.
So by the standard of design, evolution produces a more intelligently designed program, one that meets specs with fewer lines of code.
Of course in the case of antibiotic resistance, the code isn't deleted; it's just commented out.
[Thunderous applause!]
Do you have some secret info that these people don't have?:
Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world's largest fossil collection - sixty million specimens - said this:
]"If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them [in my book Evolution]"
Pierre-Paul Grasse, 30-years spent as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne, wrote this:
"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence and reveal its course or mechanisms." [Evolution of Living Organisms - New York: Academic Press, 1977]
Charles Darwin: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this; perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." David Raup [Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago]:
"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
You asked for information and I provided it. As Barbie says, "science is hard."
You are asking for evidence of something that seldom, if ever happens, and which isn't predicted by evolution -- the sudden emergence of a major new variety by one mutation.
Real populations of real organisms carry many variations, all of which are successful. Variations are not easily classified as good or bad. Individual differences help insure that at least part of a population will survive changes in climate, food supply or competition.
When the fossil record show the apparent instantaneous emergence of a new species, that "instant" is something like a million years, give or take an order of magnitude. For most populations, that represents a hundred thousand generations, or more.
If you look at the record of climate over the last hundred thousand years you will see evidence of multiple large scale changes -- evidence of the need for populations to adapt the heat, cold, drought, and the changing nature of the competition.
LOL!
Your inability to recognize sarcasm and humor do not honor your intellect.
People have "known about" dragons, garden fairies, Nessie, ghosts and Santa Claus. We even have photographs of garden fairies.
I recognize sarcasm when it exists. Your post, and its predecessor, had no content.
And these adaptations you refer to are the product of DNA mistakes?
Yes.
First of all, most DNA is non-coding. We don't know everything about why it exists, but we do know that copy errors in non-coding areas generally have little effect.
Second, many DNA words have alternate spellings that produce the same effect. These variations appear to be silent, but may be useful later on.
Third, in sexually reproducing organisms, a single mutation is often hidden as a recessive gene. Some are multivariate, diluted, so to speak.
What you appear to be arguing against is saltation, the appearance of a mutation with a dramatic effect. This doesn't happen often, if at all. Evolution dismissed saltation in the 1940 modern synthesis. It isn't needed to explain gradual change, and it isn't needed by punk eek (which is still gradual change).
I don't expect you to follow this, but for those reading along, all populations carry many mutations or variations, no one of which is critical or dramatic. Populations change in a statistical way, not by the appearance of dramatic mutations. This is true even with punctuated equilibrium.
"Even I'D like to see this!"
OK:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0095.html
"Therefore, no Evo should be against 'birth defects'"
That is silly.
The problem is that a translation is a translation.
Any translation loses the shades-of-meanining in words.
I do follow. Analogous to millions of microsoft computer errors producing more adaptive programs.
Sure!
Yes, but you are not keeping up.
Gee, that would be easily dismissable as another example of ID, wouldn't it? After all, every experiment just proves ID. Then consider that nothing is science unless it's replicable in an experiment. Therefore, we've already got the whole experiment thing Catch-22ed if you're impressed by such semantic monkeyshines.
Obviously, you don't.
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.