Dinasaurs & such

Evolution is not fact. It did not happen. The chances of evolution happening as presented is about the same as a tornado going through a auto salvage yard and assembling a fully functioning, flying, and safe 747. If you wish to believe that you came from pond slime, go ahead. However, I believe the Bible when it says God created - note that Genesis does not say that God evolved anything into anything else. It says that God created man from the dust of the earth. Pond slime is not dust.

 

Whoa now, folks, let's settle down. Evolution itself is a fact. Both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed in the laboratory. However, evolution in regards to the past origin and development of species on the earth is a theory. On that, you're correct. In fact, there are several evolutionary theories that the scientific community is debating.

Let's not let tempers flare, folks. One of the reasons I tend to stay away from these topic is because they get very violent and personal, and ultimately product no fruit.

 

Please post the abstract from one journal article that describes macroevolution being observed in the laboratory. Please also post your definition of macroevolution.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/


here is a link to Ken ham's web site answers in genesis that talks about this subject its a wonderful web site and has many good resources.

 

That's not accurate, if you are looking at the actual theory of evolution as understood by scientists. However, the theory as understood by far to many and as parodied by sectarian opposition is improbable, on that we would agree.

Evolution supposes that out of all the variations that occur by chance, those that are harmful to reproductive success suffer the consequence of being harmful to reproductive success and are eliminated. The variations that are helpful to reproductive success are passed on and become settled into the population. Obviously a random helpful change is going to be a very small change - an incremental change - but over the millions and millions of years they can add up the wonderfully elaborated panorama of life as we see it today.

This is a very far cry from a random only approach. The non-random element of trying the variations out in real life is what switches the odds in favor of developing increasingly various kinds of life. It is not at all like trying to assemble a 747 from nothing but junk.

 

JohnV, please give us the source where we can find that macroevolution was observed in a laboratory. I never heard of this being observed. What did they observe? When? Who observed this? Where was this written up?

 

There is some confusion on this board about the use of the word "theory". The word as used by scientists is not the same as the common use by laymen. In science the word theory is used for any coherent explanation even if it is proven beyond doubt. So we can refer to the theory of gravity, for example, even though it is certain that gravity exists. Some scientists may refer to evolution as a theory while at the same time believing that it really happened.

 

>>>>JohnV, please give us the source where we can find that macroevolution was observed in a laboratory. I never heard of this being observed. What did they observe? When? Who observed this? Where was this written up?<<<<<<<<<

While it is not a laboratory situation, there is strong evidence that the corn plant has undergone tremendous evolution during the past 5,000 years. Corn has been so changed that it cannot grow without the aid of man. There is no wild corn anywhere in the world. There is a wild plant growing in Mexico which seems to be the ancestor of corn but it is so different as to be a different species and does not have the ears that we know so well.

 

That is not quite the same as an alligator evolving into bunny rabbit for Easter!

Personally, I do not believe that is, or ever was, possible for a reptile of any kind to evolve into a mammal of any kind.

 

"Personally, I do not believe that is, or ever was, possible for a reptile of any kind to evolve into a mammal of any kind."

Then why do we see the following sequence?

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence.

 

I see that you have totally ignored the primary differences between reptiles and mammals—the point of my post!

 

I don't think this is macroevolution since it's still corn. Is there such a thing as corn being a different species than corn but still being corn? I think this is microevolution.
Now if the corn changed into bananas, that would be something else.

 

Craig

I am not sure that I have read the entire thread. I saw your post about rabbits and the inability of a group of mammals to eventually become a group of mammals. So I thought I would give the progression. I am sure you have seen it before. Was there an earlier post that Imissed or a nuance that I failed to grasp?

I thought it would also help in the whole "microevolution" discussion. I agree that you would be hard pressed to give a lab example of "microevolution." But I also must ask what you think the dividing line between the two is? Hypothetically, let's say you have this reptile. Over a number of generations the teeth change a little. Instead of a row of pointy teeth all the same size, some are now of different sizes and shapes. Micro or macro? What if the position of the legs move a little bit such that they are now under the body. Micro or macro? What if the group aquires the ability to regulate their body temperature some. Micro or macro?

The changes required for this transistion even over a slice of a few million years would not be much. If presented with irrefutable evidence for one of these slices, no doubt that the argument would be made that it was just microevolution. The end population was not that different from the start. But when you take the whole series, you end up with a dramatic change over a very long period of time.

 

By microevolution I mean the kind of speciation that is observable in both the field and the laboratory, such as the speciation that Dr. Hale Wedberg studied and reported in a population of Clarkia as a consequence of the population being split in two by a disruption of the geographical continuity resulting in two populations with different ecological conditions.

By macroevolution I mean the evolution of an organism of one form to an obviously different form such as from an ectothermic form to an endothermic form, or from a non-mammalian form to a mammalian form, and especially the evolution from one form of an organism to an obviously different form that requires a non-viable intermediate form.

The example of a progression that you posted is based upon a miniscule amount of the data required to demonstrate that such a progression actually occurred or was even possible.


During my days as an evolutionary biologist I came upon the research of Drs. William McDougall and J. B. Rhine, and Rhine’s colleague Gaither Pratt. Dr. Rhine completed his Ph.D. studies in Biology at Harvard Universiy, and, having heard Dr. McDougall speak at Harvard, began his post-doctoral studies at Duke University and worked closely with McDougall.

Having studied some of their research, I began doing some research of my own and obtained some of the same results. And from this research I know first hand that there are observable phenomena for which there is no explanation in the natural realm. Indeed, my own research demonstrated the presence of supernatural phenomena occurring under laboratory conditions.

Evolutionary biologists, with almost no exceptions, attempt to explain all of their data under the presupposition that no supernatural phenomena are involved. The entire concept of divine creation is totally ignored. With these presuppositions as the basis and foundation of one’s thinking, no other explanation than macroevolution from the very rudiments of life to human intelligence and consciousness is a possibility, and I have personally witnessed otherwise very competent scientists literally force the data to agree with that singular explanation.

I understand the concept of Biology being a natural science and the value of studying Biology entirely in the natural realm; but I also see some of the dangers involved when Scientists limit both their research and their thinking to the natural realm with the presupposition that no other realms are a reality and that no other realms are responsible for the data being considered.

Science has not and can not prove that God did not speak this universe into existence and create man instantaneously from the dust of the earth Science can, however, attempt to demonstrate another explanation, but when the scientist loses sight of the fact that that is all that he is doing and thinks that he is proving that man was not created but evolved, that scientist has lost sight of his role as a scientist.

 

For anyone interested in hearing both the creationist and evolutionist sides of the debate, you really need to check out http://www.talkorigins.org.

As far as macroevolution in the laboratory, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

 

(double post)

[ November 09, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Generally, microevolution is considered to be changes within species of life forms, while macroevolution is considered to be changes that result in new species of life forms.

Speciation has happenned several times. Primula kewensis is a new species of primrose that was the result of observation, back in the early 1900's. Tragopogon speciation was similarly observed, as was a new species of maidenhair fern in the early 90's. Many of the new species were no longer able to naturally reproduce with plants of their ancestors.

In animals, new species of Drosophila (fruit flies) have emerged and been observed. In many cases, the new species lose the ability to breed with fruit flies from which they were decended.

 

As I have already posted, I disagree. Dr. Hale Wedberg’s field observations included the evolution of a new species of Clarkia that when cross-pollinated with the plants in the population from which it had been separated resulted in non-fertile plants, thus demonstrating that a new species had evolved, as did the new species of Primula. Such evolution as this that is readily observable in both the field and the laboratory is a far cry from the evolution of an ectothermic species to an endothermic species, or from a non-mammalian species to a mammalian species, and especially the evolution from one form of an organism to an obviously different form that requires a non-viable intermediate form. Certainly the former Kind of evolution is very much closer to microevolution than it is to macroevolution, and I believe, therefore, that the proper designation for that former kind of evolutions is microevolution.

 

Generally, microevolution is considered to be changes within species of life forms, while macroevolution is considered to be changes that result in new species of life forms.

Speciation has happenned several times. Primula kewensis is a new species of primrose that was the result of observation, back in the early 1900's. Tragopogon speciation was similarly observed, as was a new species of maidenhair fern in the early 90's. Many of the new species were no longer able to naturally reproduce with plants of their ancestors.

In animals, new species of Drosophila (fruit flies) have emerged and been observed. In many cases, the new species lose the ability to breed with fruit flies from which they were decended. </font>[/QUOTE]When I was in school, we were taught macroevolution was going from one species to another. We had pictures in our biology book that showed the monkey going into a semi-monkey, going into a proto-Neanderthal then to a Neanderthal, then to a slightly more upright and modern looking man and finally to modern man. This was evolution. Supposedly, fish became birds, dogs became whales or something like that (or vice-versa). There is NO evidence for this evolution that I was taught nor for the evolution being taught to my son just a few years ago.

Funny how a few yrs. ago they "discovered" that the Neanderthals were not as "backward" as they thought and probably were upright and had bigger brains, etc. I think the view has "evolved" even more since then. The theories keep "evolving."

 

Marcia,

It would appear to me that you have not even the vaguest idea of what a biological species is. We are not discussing here some abstract notion like "kind," we are talking about genetically defined discrete populations.