Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Under Scrutiny


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 October 2005 - 10:35 PM

(chance @ Oct 19 2005, 04:23 PM)
The brain for animals that live in trees would have to develop before the partial gliding ability, it’s already there in animals that leap between branches (binocular vision, good depth perception, superb balance, no fear of heights).  Effectively it’s already pre-adapted for gliding.


You know, that's a pretty brash statement, i.e. "something would have to be before, etc....".

I can't belive we've actually exceeded Chance's threshold of imagination.


Pre-adaptation is a common evolutionary theme (I did not just make it up), i.e. an adaptation in one environment suits a different environment not normally part of the animals experience. That’s nothing different for an animal to develop dexterity in the fingers for tree living, then finding they are useful for carrying things, or you develop colour vision for choosing ripe fruit only to find you now have a better ability for seeing lions (unlike the grazing antelopes).

Why can't it be that the critters were just bad partial gliders, and managed to survive bouncing off the ground (that's what partial gliders do you know, i.e. bounce(real hard) from the heights of bushes, and then as they got smarter so their brains developed from all the bouncing(that's the environment shaping the genetics), and then as they learned how to fly., they moved up to greater heights.... Why not?????


Do you (did you) jump form a hight that you felt was too high? Of course not, you would have tested your abilities from a lower hight first as you played. Had you some feature or tool that increased your drag you would have felt that difference at the lower heights, the ability to jump, or glide to your body limits would be learned.

Partial gliding does not imply crashing at all, all it means is a translation to gliding distance, 10 meters, 15 meters, 30 meters. Just because I used the term poor is no reflection on the animals skill, it only a reflection relative to a better glider or flyer. If we wanted to get pedantic about it the evolutionary stages, we should drop all references to poor, better, fantastic, and convert it do distance, i.e.

Jumping – no assistance, 5 to 10 meters
First skin flap mutation 6 to 11 meters
Additional skin, 7 to 12 meters
…..etc
beginning of powered flight
50 to 100 meters
1 klm 50 klm
…. etc

At no stage is the animal in question considered poor at anything it’s just able to cover x amount of ground.

#42 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 20 October 2005 - 08:40 AM

I disagree entirely, it is only a mater of scale not an absolute.  E.g. if skinflap size x can slow you down from 30Kph to 29kph, that will translate to some physical difference in jumping altitude, eg. Could jump from 4 meters safely can now jump from 4.5 meters. The speed of the example is not an exclusionary argument, the principle remains sound.


You can show mathematically that there's a difference, but you need to show that the difference is sufficiently significant to affect survival. If you light a match in Antarctica, yes, it will raise the mean annual temperature and will contribute to the melting of the ice cap. However, it will have ZERO impact on penguin breeding. Simply pointing out some miniscule difference in wind resistance is not sufficient in your attempt to explain how an animal would preferentially survive over its competitors. If you're going to fixate on miscule differences, then why aren't you also factoring in misicule negatives acquired from interdigitary webbing, like the slight amount of clumsiness that the animal would acquire, thus impeding survival? Whatever model you propose has to be convincing that the species would in fact survive over those without webbing. I realize that what I'm suggesting is subjective, but let's see a little common sense here. I sometimes get the feeling that you argue for the sake of arguing in an attempt to diffuse negative evidence of evolution, rather than honestly confronting it.

#43 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 20 October 2005 - 01:33 PM

It has been my experience that the greatest support of evolution is the faith of its followers. Theirs is greater than mine for I believe in a possibility, they believe in an often-disproved fallacy.
A simple look at the human body provide more then enough evidence to counter the possibility of evolution. Our form contains many examples of “Irreducible Complexity”. One such area is procreation. Something we share with most other species is the fact that we are a race of two separate sexes. As the complexity of ocular vision may be compared to the simplicity of binary transmission, so may be S@xual reproduction be compared to cellular division. Cellular division is the evolutionist’s answer to early reproduction. I have seen no reliable explanation for S@xual reproduction replacing cellular division or reliable research explaining how any species was able to evolve into two sexes. This advancement is, according to evolutionary timetables, impossible. Any Junior High student can tell you that the human female is more biologically complex than the male. This is the case of every specie relying on S@xual reproduction.
This provides “difficulties” for the evolutionist. Each specie relying on S@xual reproduction is an example of “Irreducible Complexity” because the systems in the male and female bodies require their counterparts to be of a minimum design for success. The individual systems (male and female) are also examples of “Irreducible Complexity”. There is also the question of time. The incubating host (in most cases, such as human, the female) is more complex than the counterpart. A complexity of such degree that evolutionary standards should separate males and females into two species. It would take many more millions, billions (?) of years to produce a woman than a man if we had to wait for evolution. Can you imagine all those teenage boys who think marriage is a long time to wait? What if they had to wait for evolution?

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:04 PM

You can show mathematically that there's a difference, but you need to show that the difference is sufficiently significant to affect survival.


Basic Darwinian theory, survival of the fittest. If the environment favours gliding, the best gliders survive.



If you light a match in Antarctica, yes, it will raise the mean annual temperature and will contribute to the melting of the ice cap. However, it will have ZERO impact on penguin breeding. Simply pointing out some miniscule difference in wind resistance is not sufficient in your attempt to explain how an animal would preferentially survive over its competitors. If you're going to fixate on miscule differences, then why aren't you also factoring in misicule negatives acquired from interdigitary webbing, like the slight amount of clumsiness that the animal would acquire, thus impeding survival?


I have done just that previously, the only requirement is for the animal to survive, you can live with disadvantages, the examples I gave was the gliding squirrel and Tree Kangaroo.


Whatever model you propose has to be convincing that the species would in fact survive over those without webbing. I realize that what I'm suggesting is subjective, but let's see a little common sense here. I sometimes get the feeling that you argue for the sake of arguing in an attempt to diffuse negative evidence of evolution, rather than honestly confronting it.


Well I try to be thorough. But what’s not convincing? To achieve flight, incremental stages in gliding, buy either skin flaps or feathers.

#45 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:30 PM

Well I try to be thorough.  But what’s not convincing?  To achieve flight, incremental stages in gliding, buy either skin flaps or feathers.

Simply pointing out a minute mathematical difference in wind resistence is not going to cause this mutation to penetrate into the entire species. There has to be a critical amount of advantage to the new mutation. An animal with a small skin flap is not even going to attempt gliding, so the survival advantage is only hypothetical and not realistic. If what you're sayinig is true, then why is there not today evidence of evolution of partial structures showing some minimal advantage as you describe? I can't think of a single example in nature. Every specialization appears fully developed. Please don't use the example of a flying squirrel, because that is fully developed and can't possibly be evolving toward powered fligt. What I'd like to see is some animal with a slight transition toward flight that is using it now to start gaining advantage over its competitors. ToE maintains that powered flight evolved independently at least four times through natural selection, so I'm not asking much to see some evidence. Any model of such a transformation would have required millions of years with hundreds to thousands of intermediate forms. If there was such strong selective pressure in the past, why is there no evidence today of any such adaptations?

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:09 PM

Simply pointing out a minute mathematical difference in wind resistence is not going to cause this mutation to penetrate into the entire species.


If the animal (and it’s descendants) survive, then the mutation will propagate.

There has to be a critical amount of advantage to the new mutation.


Agreed, on average any mutation that offers an advantage will cause that individual to have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. (Basic Darwinian theory).



An animal with a small skin flap is not even going to attempt gliding, so the survival advantage is only hypothetical and not realistic.


I disagree, any arboreal animal that leaps from branch to branch will have significant advantage with skin flaps (or proto skin flaps, or feathers, or any methods by which the animal can change it’s surface area, or change it’s centre of gravity), because of: Better control in the air, slower landing speed, longer glides/jumps.


If what you're sayinig is true, then why is there not today evidence of evolution of partial structures showing some minimal advantage as you describe? I can't think of a single example in nature.

Goggle flying squirrel (there are several, there are also a few marsupial gliders also) there you will find an array of gliding abilities, (proportional to the surface area of the skin flaps / body weight). There are also gliding frogs, and gliding snakes, and flying fish, non of these could be described as good gliders (compared to the gliding squirrels). Their advantage is – the gliding is good enough to offset any disadvantage.

With the exception of the flying fish, all are arboreal the link (living in trees is necessary to evolve into a flyer)I feel is established.


Every specialization appears fully developed. Please don't use the example of a flying squirrel, because that is fully developed and can't possibly be evolving toward powered fligt.


Your imposing an unrealistic argument, we live in a ‘snap shot of time’ all features appear fully developed be we live is a short period of time. Evolution is a process requiring generations, that’s why it’s not intuitive (because you can’t see it happening). But the example of a Tree Kangaroo was my attempt at demonstrating a “non-fully developed” tree dweller.


What I'd like to see is some animal with a slight transition toward flight that is using it now to start gaining advantage over its competitors.


OK what about the flying fish, would that qualify?


ToE maintains that powered flight evolved independently at least four times through natural selection, so I'm not asking much to see some evidence. Any model of such a transformation would have required millions of years with hundreds to thousands of intermediate forms. If there was such strong selective pressure in the past, why is there no evidence today of any such adaptations?


Archaeopteryx, and a couple of Chinese fossils (I rely must commit there names to memory for the purpose of reference). They have reptilian and avian features.

#47 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 October 2005 - 06:58 PM

I disagree, any arboreal animal that leaps from branch to branch will have significant advantage with skin flaps (or proto skin flaps, or feathers, or any methods by which the animal can change it’s surface area, or change it’s centre of gravity), because of:  Better control in the air, slower landing speed, longer glides/jumps.
  Goggle flying squirrel (there are several, there are also a few marsupial gliders also)  there you will find an array of gliding abilities, (proportional to the surface area of the skin flaps / body weight).  There are also gliding frogs, and gliding snakes, and flying fish, non of these could be described as good gliders (compared to the gliding squirrels).  Their advantage is – the gliding is good enough to offset any disadvantage.

Before I can intelligently respond to this, I must inquire... what is the current thinking on the number of transtional species that would be required? For example, how many intermediates would you estimate there to be between a non-gliding arboreal bat precursor and a fully developed bat? How many intermediates between a sardine-like precursor and a flying fish?

OK what about the flying fish, would that qualify?

Not even close, in my view. A flying fish has very obvious survival advantages because it's ability to glide. I don't see a rat with webbed digits as having any gliding ability whatsoever. If someone want's to split hairs and suppose that there is a slight increase in air resistance... it is not convincing that it would be sufficient to penetrate the species. My understanding of natural selection is that it's going to survive over the others without the mutation... i.e., the skin flap will take over the entire population. I'm saying that the advantage has to be significant. While we're on the subject of flying fish... so you see any evolutionary way that they could go on to achieve powered flight at some point? I bring this up because there's a big difference beteen gliding and true powered flight. THere would have to be a phenomenal amount of architectural redesign for a fish to fly, and I think this analogy serves a point in the argument against a gliding-true flight transition.

Archaeopteryx, and a couple of Chinese fossils (I rely must commit there names to memory for the purpose of reference).  They have reptilian and avian features.

Monotremes have reptilian and mammalian features and are not transitional.

#48 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:26 PM

Before I can intelligently respond to this, I must inquire... what is the current thinking on the number of transtional species that would be required? For example, how many intermediates would you estimate there to be between a non-gliding arboreal bat precursor and a fully developed bat? How many intermediates between a sardine-like precursor and a flying fish?


Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a ‘transitional species’, (it’s more of a common phrase to explain what an intermediate ancestor would look like) but in the sprit of this forum I don’t think I have ever seen such an example other than one of those morphing cartoons. Evolution is gradual, looking forward or backwards in time frames we are used to would reveal no differences. The only point I am comfortable in stating is what is necessary, i.e. a gradual change from no skin flaps to ever larger ones, or length in forelimbs to powered flight (same for every feature).


OK what about the flying fish, would that qualify?

Not even close, in my view. A flying fish has very obvious survival advantages because it's ability to glide. I don't see a rat with webbed digits as having any gliding ability whatsoever. <moved> I'm saying that the advantage has to be significant. While we're on the subject of flying fish... so you see any evolutionary way that they could go on to achieve powered flight at some point? I bring this up because there's a big difference beteen gliding and true powered flight. THere would have to be a phenomenal amount of architectural redesign for a fish to fly, and I think this analogy serves a point in the argument against a gliding-true flight transition.


But do you not agree (presume evolution for the moment) that gliding must come before flight. It is therefore only a short step to manipulate the control into power. Thus in my examples I list gliding.

In the case of the flying fish, powered flight. You do realise the flying fish employs powered flight not just gliding, It’s not hard to imaging this feature becoming more prominent in some strange new environment. please reconsider, I think it’s an excellent example of pre-flight (to the extent of a bird).

Well lets do a thought experiment on the flying fish, lets assume the only food is now in the air, then:

Front fins get bigger.
Tail fin for the water power elongates.
Species branches into flyers using tail power, and those that are more reliant on the forelimbs.
This new species slowly drops the tail fin for power and develops the wings. (fly fisherman of the world rejoice, and remove the sinker)



If someone want's to split hairs and suppose that there is a slight increase in air resistance... it is not convincing that it would be sufficient to penetrate the species. My understanding of natural selection is that it's going to survive over the others without the mutation... i.e., the skin flap will take over the entire population.


Eeek.. no way. For a mutation to take over a population there needs to be a few things going for it:

a. a small population size is almost essential, else the mutation will get “lost in the noise” (sort of, this is not strictly true).
b. Pressure, evolution thrives on disaster, sorts the fit from the unfit (this can take several forms, climate change, lack of resources, new predator enters the environment).
c. The “disaster” can’t be to big or too rapid, as evolution can only work from generation to generation.
d. Evolution (for branching species) works best on unspecialised animals, once an animal specialises there is rapid movement to fix that specialisation, or continue the theme. This can backfire in a big way.


Monotremes have reptilian and mammalian features and are not transitional.


They may be a very ancient survivors from the past, long before dinosaurs, isolation has preserved them from the rough an tumble of modern mammals. You must remember it is not a requirement of evolution that the ancient ancestor that gave birth to the new species itself pass away into extinction, given the right conditions it can muddle through the eons, oblivious.

#49 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:15 AM

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a ‘transitional species’, (it’s more of a common phrase to explain what an intermediate ancestor would look like) but in the sprit of this forum I don’t think I have ever seen such an example other than one of those morphing cartoons.

Can you give me a reason why there are no existing transitional species on the evolutionary tree of life? You stated that there's no reason that a species at a "lower level" of evolution needs to become extinct. Why, then, do all evolutionary trees show all life as peripheral branches, with no direct ancestry exc ept from the first cell?

But do you not agree (presume evolution for the moment) that gliding must come before flight.

Yes, if evolution were true

It is therefore only a short step to manipulate the control into power. Thus in my examples I list gliding.

It's not that simple. There are multiple simultaneous adaptations that would have to simultaneously occur..

In the case of the flying fish, powered flight. You do realise the flying fish employs powered flight not just gliding, It’s not hard to imaging this feature becoming more prominent in some strange new environment. please reconsider, I think it’s an excellent example of pre-flight (to the extent of a bird).

I don't want to get bogged down out on a tangent, but I don't think that they have truely powered flight.

Well lets do a thought experiment on the flying fish, lets assume the only food is now in the air, then:

Front fins get bigger.
Tail fin for the water power elongates.
Species branches into flyers using tail power, and those that are more reliant on the forelimbs.
This new species slowly drops the tail fin for power and develops the wings. (fly fisherman of the world rejoice, and remove the sinker)


It sounds reasonable on the surface, but other factors would be required, such as it would have to develop novel ways of suspeding respiration while in the air, while still maintaining sufficient energy production to maintain flight, prevent dehydration, and develop fast twitch musclature and almost certainly some sort of skeletal structure to support its pectoral fins, not to mention an enhanced cerebellar capacity for coordination, among the simplest of requirements.
All of these coadaptations are unidirectional, which greatly magnifies the improbabily if you're going to explain things in terms of blind chance. As far as being driven to powered flight by the pressure of obtaining food, I don't see much food in the air over the surface of open ocean,but I suppose you could argue that the escaping of predators would still constitute substantial selective pressure.

#50 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:21 AM

Given your "debate", I thought you might enjoy this. It is called a "flying lemur" and is a much better glider than the flying squirrel. Also, from what I understand, the fingers are showing greater adaptation to gliding. Although the fingers are considerably more extended in the bat, the types of flaps and the success in gliding (up to 100 meters have been reported), have led some to call it a "half bat" (although it is on a very different evolutionary line).
http://home.comcast....ra/half-bat.JPG


I am sure scientists are still debating the following claim, but it is interesting.....
http://www.innovatio...port-10699.html

The flying lemur a close relative

Our pedigree has been revised. Our closest relatives--gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, gibbon apes, and baboons--have been joined by an animal whose appearance hardly resembles that of humans: the Dermoptera or the flying lemur.

Flying lemurs live in Southeast Asia. The largest species can be 75 cm tall. This animal can glide between trees thanks to skin stretched between the front and back legs.

This discovery was made by a research team headed by Professor Ulfur Arnason at Lund University in Sweden. It is presented in the latest issue of the American scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Flying lemurs have the same ancestors as the Anthropoidea, that is, apes from the New and Old Worlds, including human beings. We are more closely related to flying lemurs that we are to half-apes,” says Professor Arnason.

#51 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:59 AM

1. The evolution of flight in bats.  (specifically, what would a bat ancestor look like and how could natural selection favor an early non functioning wing over a fully functional forelimb?)  A similar challenge could be made for flying reptiles and birds.
2. The evolution of the lens
3. The evolution of binary code transmission via the optic nerve.
The evolution of hemoglobin or any other complex molecule essential to life.

View Post


I should also add, in regards to #2, that since the time of Darwin, we have a much better grasp of the variety of animals and organs represented in the animal kingdom today, and in the fossil record. As far as the eye, one can find in the animal kingdom today, almost the entire span of eyes needed for the successive steps needed for the evolution of the eye. They range from: a single photoreceptor, to a pitted eye (more directionality), to a deep pitted eye (yet more directionality), to a pinhole eye (yet more directionality and some ability to form an image), to eyes with very simple corneas, to eyes with very simple corneas and crude lenses, to eyes like our with more complex lenses accurate corneas.

In addition, this sort of evolution has been simulated and it has been argued that it could in theory be achieved in a relatively small number of steps (in evolutionary terms). I think most scientists studying the evolution of the eye believe it to be 'relatively' straightforward (but still lots of remaining questions about the evolution of the wiring of the nervous system).
http://www.blackwell..._of_the_eye.asp

The evolution of the auditory system is in some ways, more complex. However, since the bones of the middle ear often fossilize, there is a better historical record for some of the principle lines.

As far as #3, the optic nerve uses the same form of neural transmission as the rest of the nervous system does (and the same as all nervous systems with spiking neurons). There is nothing unique about these axons.

p.s. ..

It is also worth noting, that for any species and any organ found today, one can not determine whether it is transitional unless you know where it is going. Each of these eyes "could" be transitional if they evolved into something else over the next few million years. Is the flying lemur "wing" or the penguin "wing" or the ostrich wing transitional? Maybe yes, maybe no. It will take a while to find out. If the animal doesn't go extinct in the next few million years, the answer is probably yes.

#52 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 26 October 2005 - 11:29 AM

It is also worth noting, that for any species and any organ found today, one can not determine whether it is transitional unless you know where it is going. Each of these eyes "could" be transitional if they evolved into something else over the next few million years. Is the flying lemur "wing" or the penguin "wing" or the ostrich wing transitional? Maybe yes, maybe no. It will take a while to find out. If the animal doesn't go extinct in the next few million years, the answer is probably yes.

On the subject of transitional species, why is it that the evolutionary tree of life shows a total absense of them? It they existed by the billions in the past, why is there no evidence of them today? You suppose that and ostrich or flying lemur may be evolving toward something else, but there is nothing today that is transitional between a flying lemur and some lower form. Chance said on one of his posts that there is no reason for transitional species to become extinct. Try doing a google search on evolutionary tree of life, and you will see no animal leading up to another. Everything is a peripheral branch with a hypothetical common ancestor.

#53 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:50 PM

Can you give me a reason why there are no existing transitional species on the evolutionary tree of life? You stated that there's no reason that a species at a "lower level" of evolution needs to become extinct. Why, then, do all evolutionary trees show all life as peripheral branches, with no direct ancestry exc ept from the first cell?


They don’t! What you should see, working from the top down is a continuous line (joining others) to a single ancestor. If you work from the bottom up you are more than likely to find that you come to a dead end, as you take a ‘wrong turn’.

It's not that simple. There are multiple simultaneous adaptations that would have to simultaneously occur.


Agreed. But that is not a problem we are just using the main example of skin flaps, the same evolutionary principle hold true for all the other changes. It’s environment driven all changes must fit the environment.

I don't want to get bogged down out on a tangent, but I don't think that they have truely powered flight.


OK but they do have true powered flight, once in the air the tip of the tail remains submerged to provide propulsion. It’s only the medium that is different for bird flight, i.e. a bird throws air behind it, the flying fish trows water behind it. It’s exhaustive work for the fish, plus it has to hold it’s breath, but that’s just what it would have been like for any of the pioneering species, the benefit is in a new resource to be explointed where no other can get to it.




Well lets do a thought experiment on the flying fish

It sounds reasonable on the surface, but other factors would be required, such as it would have to develop novel ways of suspeding respiration while in the air, while still maintaining sufficient energy production to maintain flight, prevent dehydration, and develop fast twitch musclature and almost certainly some sort of skeletal structure to support its pectoral fins, not to mention an enhanced cerebellar capacity for coordination, among the simplest of requirements.


Good points, I agree.

All of these coadaptations are unidirectional, which greatly magnifies the improbabily if you're going to explain things in terms of blind chance. As far as being driven to powered flight by the pressure of obtaining food, I don't see much food in the air over the surface of open ocean, but I suppose you could argue that the escaping of predators would still constitute substantial selective pressure.


Again I 100% agree, the flying fish has a huge amount of evolutionary changes necessary, and realistically I thank that amount of changes is unrealistic. The point is that to get to that point you do need a rather strange world where the only food available is now in the air. The problem for the ultra-flying fish is it’s breeding strategy, with no reason to go on land it will never evolve a system for giving birth, this water/air life style is locked to the ocean.

#54 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:57 PM

Great link. What a cool animal the flying lemur, can’t say iv heard of it before. It’s even got webbing on the tail and leading edges of the forelimbs.

#55 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 26 October 2005 - 06:19 PM

They don’t!    What you should see, working from the top down is a continuous line (joining others) to a single ancestor.  If you work from the bottom up you are more than likely to find that you come to a dead end, as you take a ‘wrong turn’.

But, do you agree that there are no living transitional species? If there are, what are they. I don't see a single example on the evolutionary tree.

#56 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:32 PM

But, do you agree that there are no living transitional species? If there are, what are they.


How about all of them? OK, I know what you mean, how about the Tree Kangaroo?

I don't see a single example on the evolutionary tree.


Realistically it’s an impossible question to answer with out a crystal ball :D Because,
a. how do you know what an animal will evolve into? And
b. the evolutionary tree only shows the big picture not the linage of individuals.

#57 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 26 October 2005 - 10:52 PM

the evolutionary tree only shows the big picture not the linage of individuals.

View Post


Why? Because there is no lineage. There are no transitional forms anywhere in the record. The "Big picture" contains enough information to show the truth. For those who will seek the answers of the evidence and not seek to force the evidence into their pre-formed answers.

#58 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 October 2005 - 02:06 PM

the evolutionary tree only shows the big picture not the linage of individuals.


Why? Because there is no lineage. There are no transitional forms anywhere in the record. The "Big picture" contains enough information to show the truth. For those who will seek the answers of the evidence and not seek to force the evidence into their pre-formed answers.


Please explain what you see in “the big picture”. Is the big picture consistent with you explanation of the world?

Thought experiment - Assume evolution and earth is true for the moment, is the current explanation of big picture, consistent with rates of fossilisation, (i.e. only a small percentage of life is fossilised)? Should it be possible to find an individual family tree with only say half a dozen representatives?


P.S. what do you think of the Tree Kangaroo as a representative of a living transitional?

#59 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 27 October 2005 - 10:25 PM

On the subject of transitional species, why is it that the evolutionary tree of life shows a total absense of them? It they existed by the billions in the past, why is there no evidence of them today? You suppose that and ostrich or flying lemur may be evolving toward something else, but there is nothing today that is transitional between a flying lemur and some lower form. Chance said on one of his posts that there is no reason for transitional species to become extinct. Try doing a google search on evolutionary tree of life, and you will see no animal leading up to another. Everything is a peripheral branch with a hypothetical common ancestor.


Every "fork" in a "branch" on the phylogenetic tree represents a transitional species. The only time that any given species would NOT be considered transitional is if it stopped evolving, which has not been seen yet.

#60 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 28 October 2005 - 07:56 AM

Every "fork" in a "branch" on the phylogenetic tree represents a transitional species. 

Not only every "fork", but the entire line leading up to the species, which must have been hundreds or thousands of species, am I to presume? Are you suggesting, then, that transitional species have to all go to extinction? That would mean that every micromutational occurance was dominant and penetrated the entire species. Is this the going theory?

The only time that any given species would NOT be considered transitional is if it stopped evolving, which has not been seen yet.
[

Evolution has never been observed, only inferred. [please don't counter with an example such as industrial melanism or sickle cell anemia... I'm talking about the kind of evolution that supposedly leads to new species.]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users