Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Now I know you're getting the Duane Gish version. "One day a lizard gave birth to a bird. But where was another bird for that one to mate with?"
The whole population drifts along together. At any given time, all the males are compatible with all the females, outside a few bad matches.
Also, the change is more gradualistic even with punk-eek than what Duane told you. For instance, Note that there was many a step from dino to bird.
It is full of transitional fossils. Heck, every animal that ever lived is a transitional form. You are a transitional form if the human race doesn't suddenly become extinct. Even transitional fossils will be fully functional, integrated organisms because they were well adapted for the environment they found themselves in. Their daughter species adapted to the environment as it changed or they ceased to exist. It's not like one day area X was tropical and the next day it was arctic, or that sea levels rose or fell dozens of feet overnight -- even the "abrupt" changes in the environment are only abrupt on a geological scale and actually take dozens of generations, allowing plenty of time for species to adapt or not. Below are several links on such things as "macroevolution," speciation and transitional fossils (hint: they do exist).
Macroevolution, Speciation and Transitional Species
29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Thread The Next (2001-04-02)
African Elephants Are Now One of Two Kinds [Elephant Evolution] (2001-08-24)
All About Archaeopteryx {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, January 15, 1999}
Archaeopteryx FAQs, The {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, 1995-1997}
Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds {Thomas Holtz, Jr., 1995}
Biologists Uncover Darwin's ‘Missing Evidence’ for Divergence of Species in a Warbler's Song (2001-01-19)
DNA and Darwin: Research Shows that Evolution Repeats Itself in Caribbean Lizards (2001-04-07)
Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)
Macroevolution {John Wilkins, Talk Origins, 1997}
Macro-Evolution versus Moses (Several Parts) (1999-12-14)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part II] (2000-04-02)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part III] (2000-04-11)
Observed Instances of Speciation {Joseph Boxhorn, Talk Origins, September 1, 1995}
Process of Speciation, The {University of Michigan, 1996}
Speciation {Kimball's Biology Pages, December 1, 2001}
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium {Don Lindsay}
Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists (2000-05-18)
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change (2002-02-07)
Ted Holden's "Intermediate Fossil" Quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message" {Andrew MacRae}
Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent {Wesley R. Elsberry}
Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina {April 26, 1998}
Transitional Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt}
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt, Talk Origins, March 17, 1997}
Water Lily Study Sheds Light on Evolution of Flowering Plants {Scientific American}
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
No it doesn't require mutations in two individuals. The speciation in punctuated equilibrium does not happen overnight. It still takes dozens of generations during which beneficial genes spread throughout a population. It only looks like it happens abruptly on a GEOLOGICAL SCALE.
Where have you picked up such strange ideas in regards to evolution? It wasn't out of any text book or scientific treatise on the subject, unless you simply misunderstood what was being presented. Hell, my last biology class was as a college sophomore 17 years ago, and I understand the basics of the theory.
The fossil record is indeed full of transitionals-- previous posts have linked to threads showing the transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between ruminants and whales, between primates and humans, and on and on. Of course, each fossil is a "fully functional, integrated organism"; that's exactly what evolution predicts. It has to be to stay alive and pass on its genes to the next generation. It just is a fully functional, integrated organism that happens to have, in the case of transitional whales, both hip bones and flippers.
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
Punctuated equilibrium requires no such thing. Punk-eek speaks of evolution as happening relatively quickly, in geologic time-- e.g., over tens of thousands of years rather than the hundreds of thousands predicted by classical darwinism-- not all in one generation. And a mutation doesn't have to occur in both a male and a female; if one of them has it, half their offspring will have it, and if it confers a reproductive advantage, more of the next generation will have it, and so on.
Dig in the right place and you will find those elusive transitionals. = They haven't found the right place yet. No evidence.
..we had no fossil record of really early man until we looked in East Africa. There, we collected tidbits from diverse areas, glued them together, called it "evidence" and got grants for more research.
Imbedded in this response is the Sagan-esque tact that says "If you can't observe facts that support your theory - just add more time to the theory! Eventually, you will have a model that permits the possibily that anything could have happened."
These explainations contain so many twists that I have to ask that age old question: How do you have enough faith to believe that?
This has been fun, hasn't it?
Russ
If you get a counterfeit bill from the bank and get caught passing it---you are stuck with it?
I was surprised to find out when I was in college...even the post office wouldn't let me return damaged stamps!
Even the mother of theology is philosophy--it all--science begins and ends in your mind--soul--self!
You shouldn't pass bogus bills--thoughts.
If you want to be in science--reality...you have to know the difference between possibility and probability!
That would be a good start!
Where are the duds? The transitional forms with half-developed eyes? Half-developed nervous systems, etc.?
Punk-eek speaks of evolution as happening relatively quickly, in geologic time-- e.g., over tens of thousands of years rather than the hundreds of thousands predicted by classical darwinism-- not all in one generation.
And how is this is different from differentiation by small mutation?
And a mutation doesn't have to occur in both a male and a female; if one of them has it, half their offspring will have it, and if it confers a reproductive advantage, more of the next generation will have it, and so on.
Not if it's a giant step. Either you have variation by small mutation which would result in a fossil record full of transitional duds, or you have variation by large mutation which necessitates the simultaneous, spontaneous, miraculous appearance of both a male and female of the same new species.
For what? Bats?
There, we collected tidbits from diverse areas, glued them together, called it "evidence" and got grants for more research.
You've proven something here. You've proven that there's no making you see.
The Hominid Fossils. Please identify which one you're critiquing here.
This has been fun, hasn't it?
Well, it certainly must have been easy to toss off. But then, you didn't really do a thing, did you?
This is getting pathetic. Every degree of visual sensor and nervous system are present in existing species today.
You're an example what happens when someone gets all his science from pamphlets.
What is a half-developed eye? Your skin is a half-developed eye in that it can sense light but does not resolve an image. Some single-celled critters can detect light, and simple invertebrates such as brine shrimp have eye spots that also just detect light. Farther up the scale are the arthropod eyes that can detect shades of light and movement. Then you've got eyes that can resolve only black and white, or some colors. But then again, you've got insect eyes which can resolve colors well into the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. What do you consider a half-developed eye?
As for half-developed nervous systems, what would you consider that to be? Would it be the stimulus-response receptors found on jelly-fish, the non-centralized nervous system of the starfish, the ganglia-controlled stimulus-response system of insects? You need to be a little clearer.
It isn't, and that's the point.
I don't think you are quite getting this. There is no giant, spontaneous leap from one species to the next. It is a gradual movement of the entire population over many, many generations. Any really badly adapted critters die off and the well-adapted critters pass their improved genes on to the next generation.
Or the fledgling chordate nervous system of Amphioxus?
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.