[There is no evidence of this. It’s based upon biblical presuppositions.]
I’m sorry, but it’s based on scientific facts aNd on evidences of the fossil records that show fully completed species that have reamined the same all the way from the Cambrian explosion to now
[I wonder how you expect us to demonstrate this in the lab when the change you’d like takes much longer than many human lifespans.]
Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation.
[You said that the author had left out thousands of cynodonts that showed this thread did not exist, although you didn’t have a shred of evidence to prove this.]
No that’s not correct- I didn’t say the authors left out thousands of Cynodonts- I brought up the fact that species were left out and only a coupel of examples are given for the supposed evolution of the ear hearing- again we’ll go back to the apple/pinapple example to illustrate that there are many many other species in the millions of years that simply aren’t taken into account-
[When we find a close evolutionary ancestor of the first cynodont, will you retract your objections?]
Again- it would be irresponsible to retract the statement that only a couple of examples are given between dissimiliar species- comparisons are made, and assumptions are utilized to fill in the huge gaps- these gaps are not small and not insignificant.
Pakicetus was reported to be the species that was aquatic based on a fragment of the the jaw and fragment of the skull, and was dropped into the ‘ear hearing evolution’ charts to show the supposed evolving ear hearing. What the writer didn’t tell you was that this creature was later discovered to be fully terrestrial with feet for running- not swimming. “A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.2 The commentary on this paper in the same issue3 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
Coyote: Ah- ?Tukana boy, whos skull was within the range of fully human species. Tools foudn in same layers? Egads, whoda thunk humans used tools? Oh and molecular biology disproves the chimp to man hypothesis. While the skulls you showcase repeatedly are indeed interesting glimpses into the past, they show nothign more than fully human or fully ape species, and even those in field can’t agree on which ones should be classified as human or ape- yet folks continue to trot out hte wall posters as though the questions have been resolved and everyone agrees.
“Therefore, the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is, Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of Neanderthals being the ancestors of modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in Neanderthal’s brain case (23) and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove (24-25). None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent analysis of Neanderthal hands has revealed that modern humans and Neanderthals differed markedly in the kind of grip they could use” http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
Seems there’s all kinds of serious problems as pointed out in detail by the link provided that are simply glossed over when trying to claim man came from apes
Such as?
What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?
"Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation."
Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?
Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?
Nuking the poor bugs so they obtain an unmanageable mutation load in one go and then failing to provide any selective force for any potentially useful mutations does not prove evolution cannot occur.
What the writer didn’t tell you was that this creature was later discovered to be fully terrestrial with feet for running- not swimming.
You'll be happy to hear that we have hundreds of fossils from three species of pakicetids, and new research shows they were completely aquatic, kind of like a cross between a pygmy hippo and a sea otter.
I didn’t say the authors left out thousands of Cynodonts- I brought up the fact that species were left out and only a coupel of examples are given for the supposed evolution of the ear hearing
Sometimes it's hard to discuss things with you because you're not very organized. The paper I presented was studying the trend of increasing dentary size in proportion to other jaw bones during cynodont evolution. These other jaw bones did not become involved in the ear until later in early mammalian evolution.
You did indeed say that the author had left out material in spite of having no evidence that the evidence was cherry-picked.
Ayeeuh?? I just noticed this. The animals alive in the Cambrian were truly bizarre and have led to a lot of "what the heck is this?" debates. Likewise, we have one set of organisms in the Cambrian, another set in the Devonian, another set in the Permian, another set in the Triassic, another set in the Cretaceous, and another set in the Tertiary. There have been many major life forms that arose and died out, and they're all stacked so neatly in the strata, with nary a Tertiary organism in the Triassic.
Some organisms are evolutionary orphans and survived the extinctions that took their fellows to live to the present, but in general change is the rule.