Are there transitional fossils?

[Skreeper]

I'm a Christian and a creationist/intelligent design...God made EVERYTHING

The majority of Christians accept evolution so you can be a Christian and accept scientific discoveries at the same time.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm a Christian and a creationist/intelligent design...God made EVERYTHING

I'm a Christian and accept evolution and expect a naturalistic abiogenesis will be demonstrated eventually...God made everything.

 

[Gene2memE]

No the dates are just wrong

When in doubt, blanket denial. Whatever works for you then.

I don't suppose you have any sources supporting this claim?

Could you show me, for example, when there was a catastrophic, simultaneous collapse in the Jomon culture, Indus Valley civilizations, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian/Assyrian kingdoms?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No idea, I would have to know more about the fossils.

But you said my chart of the horse series was just horse pictures. Does that mean you think they all evolved from a common horse source? It is obvious to me, from their sequence in the fossil record, and by the advancement of features involved here, that these are all indeed a series of ancestors of the modern horse. Many creationists agree. Do you agree? We probably will never know, because you will not tell us.

My honest opinion, some interesting artwork, that's about it because that's all you got.

Uh, no not just pictures of fossil horses. Here is a description of what we have found -- Horse Evolution . We have not only drawings, but probably thousands of fossils.

A. garhi measures 450cc, the same size as other australopithecines is supposedly the only one in the chart proceeding Homo habilis (handy man), probably because he was discovered by a Leaky and allegedly used tools.

Nope, there was also A. afrarensis, A. anamensis, and A. ramidus before Lucy on the Hominid chart. And before the starting point on that chart, there are other representatives of ancestors of humans.

Australopithecus (A.) africanus A. robustus A. boisei (Paranthropus boisei) A aethiopicus Kenyanthropus platyops 450cc h rudolflensis 500cc +?, are all, ‘southern apes’, that are not in our lineage. Notice the dead ends in the chart.

Yep. There were plenty of dead ends. Evolution branches out in many different directions. Some win, some lose. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

I've addressed a number of these repeatedly and if we ever get to Homo habilis I can dump a truck.

KNM ER-1470 was representative of a transitional fossil. Skull KNM-ER 1470

OK, now you can take a dump.

Creation week happened about 6000 years ago and we didn't 'find them', hundreds of millions of years ago the fossil bed was given that date.

Uh, the fossils were not just given that date, we have accurate measurements that show us the date. But even if you don't accept modern dating methods, what about the clear record of the sequential layers in the rocks that correlate worldwide? Creationist like Sedgwick knew that in the 19th century. Can you acknowledge what scientists have known since the 19th century using basic observation of the rocks?

Is it too much to ask you to agree with what could be seen by simple observation in the 19th century, and was later confirmed many times over by science?

The surrounding fossil bed my well be that old but life itself didn't start until about 6000 years ago.

That's odd, because we find signs of life down to about 4 billion years ago.

You do know I'm a Creationist right?

Some creationists think God created progressively over millions of years. Some creationists think God created the first life and evolved things after that. Even young earth creationists come in many varieties and vigorously contest what other creationists say. So unless you decide to be more specific, there is no way we can know what you believe.

Unfortunately Noah didn't keep that information for us, nor did Moses. There were at least two the cat's ancestors on board.

But you are the one that seems to be claiming that multiple cats species descended from one cat pair from the ark. So do you think it was possibly one cat pair was the ancestors of all 42 species of cat, including lions, leopards, and house cats? We will never know, because you will evade the question forever, yes?

Still a Creationist here, in case you didn't know we consider radiometric dating to be highly dubious at best.

Some creationists accept radiometric dating.

(Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, AIG Dr. Andrew Snelling)

Heard that dozens of times. Things like isochrons actually tell us what the original composition was and that the rock being tested was not contaminated. See Radiometric Dating .

All I'm seeing is a few pictures and some dubious dating techniques.

I cannot help it if you will not look. Here for instance is an exhaustive listing of transitional fossils. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

And here are more pictures of actual transtional fossils than you will ever need to see -- transitional fossils - Bing images .

I don't ignore them, I dismiss them.

Same thing.

Below the many, many mammal-like reptile fossils there were only reptiles. The mammal-like reptile fossils show incremental changes of the jaw and earbones until the mammal prototype was reached, and then after that there were many mammals. You have simply ignored them. You have given no explanation for how that could happen.

I like the Berkley site, I've enjoyed looking around there for years. That's just a few paragraphs I find largely unconvincing. I prefer primary source material.

Here are more primary source articles on transitionals then you need -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2C

Here is my favorite: Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38 .

I see you cut and pasted the Merriam-Webster definition, it starts with a literal definition of the meaning of the word:

Tell you what, buddy, you take up your argument of semantics with Webster. I have no need for a prolonged discussion on the possible meanings of the word "evolution".

 

[mark kennedy]

But you said my chart of the horse series was just horse pictures. Does that mean you think they all evolved from a common horse source? It is obvious to me, from their sequence in the fossil record, and by the advancement of features involved here, that these are all indeed a series of ancestors of the modern horse. Many creationists agree. Do you agree? We probably will never know, because you will not tell us.

For me the, 'theory of evolution', and the phenomenon of evolution is not the same thing at all. What is more it's not a take it or leave it, I have to accept that everything has a common ancestor as being the only choice. I don't have a real problem with horses having a common ancestor but there is a priority problem here. Human evolution starts with Adam and every mammal, reptile and bird has a common ancestor represented on Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago. I have never been ambiguise about this and as far as common ancestry across the level of kingdom and phylum the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is pure undiluted mythology.

Uh, no not just pictures of fossil horses. Here is a description of what we have found -- Horse Evolution . We have not only drawings, but probably thousands of fossils.

There are two issues for me here and these elaborate genealogical trees hardly address the core issue, let alone the particulars. My primary issues are the timeline and the level of taxonomic category beyond which there is no molecular basis.

Nope, there was also A. afrarensis, A. anamensis, and A. ramidus before Lucy on the Hominid chart. And before the starting point on that chart, there are other representatives of ancestors of humans.

Not really, not when it comes to the single biggest giant leap in our lineage, the nearly three fold expansion of the hominid line from that of apes. Given the fossil record this must have happened about 2 million years ago with virtually no precursors. It's even more telling that there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the fossil record even though Lucy and the Taung Child are suitable candidates. There is also a comprehensive history of the rise of Darwinian logic from the Piltdown hoax to the development of the stone age ape man hoax.

Yep. There were plenty of dead ends. Evolution branches out in many different directions. Some win, some lose. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

KNM ER-1470 was representative of a transitional fossil. Skull KNM-ER 1470

This is never all that cut and dried:

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, Wikipedia)
​

This isn't an isolated incident, case in point, the Dmanisi fossils:

• Although the facial morphology is missing, the braincase of cranium D2280 is complete, and small in size like the rest of the Dmanisi hominins, with a endocranial capacity of 775cm3.
• Skull D2700 The cranial capacity is 600 cm3
• The edentulous skull D3444 and associated mandible D3900 has a cranial capacity of 650 cm3
• Cranium D4500 associated with the D2600 mandible represents the fifth individual (referred as Skull 5) found at Dmanisi and is the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene (1.77 million years ago). Skull 5 shows a combination of features hitherto unknown for early Homo. It has the smallest braincase of all Dmanisi individuals (546ccm) (Paleolithic Dmanisi)

The first complete skull in this treasure trove of fossils is about 200cc smaller then the celebrated earlier ones. The thing about a complete skull is you don't get to rearrange the form yielding a larger cranial capacity.

Uh, the fossils were not just given that date, we have accurate measurements that show us the date. But even if you don't accept modern dating methods, what about the clear record of the sequential layers in the rocks that correlate worldwide? Creationist like Sedgwick knew that in the 19th century. Can you acknowledge what scientists have known since the 19th century using basic observation of the rocks?

The Sedgwick sidebar was actually very interesting, I really don't know what you think is being demonstrated by this though. The way fossils work is that they are mineralized by the surrounding soil, pressure etc. So the fossil bed may well have been that old but that doesn't mean what is encased there is.

Is it too much to ask you to agree with what could be seen by simple observation in the 19th century, and was later confirmed many times over by science?

Unlike Genetics or Paleontology the Geologist isn't really giving us anything tangible. They observe decay rates over weeks, months or maybe years and projecting that over thousands if not millions of years. When it comes to many things with TOE I reserve the right to remain unconvinced, with radiometric dating I am consumed with incredulity.

That's odd, because we find signs of life down to about 4 billion years ago.

I disagree, you find fossils in fragmentary fashion, being dated after being mineralized by soil samples of great age to be sure. That doesn't sound like a deal breaker, it's sounds anecdotal and presuppositional to me.

Some creationists think God created progressively over millions of years. Some creationists think God created the first life and evolved things after that. Even young earth creationists come in many varieties and vigorously contest what other creationists say. So unless you decide to be more specific, there is no way we can know what you believe.

Some Creationists call themselves that but have no idea what the doctrine of creation really includes. For someone to claim to be a Creationist is perfectly fine with me, until I hear what they think of the New Testament history and miracles it's little more the an empty assertion.

But you are the one that seems to be claiming that multiple cats species descended from one cat pair from the ark. So do you think it was possibly one cat pair was the ancestors of all 42 species of cat, including lions, leopards, and house cats? We will never know, because you will evade the question forever, yes?

I'm not worried about dogs, cats or horses. I'm not bothered by the fantastic projections from observations lasting months or years projected back into an obscure primitive history.

Some creationists accept radiometric dating.

Some accept Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, so be it.

Heard that dozens of times. Things like isochrons actually tell us what the original composition was and that the rock being tested was not contaminated. See Radiometric Dating .

I had the choice early on to decide between geology or the life sciences, I was sure there was no point in pursuing radiometric dating because it proved nothing one way or the other. What I decided is the genetics is the prize.

I cannot help it if you will not look. Here for instance is an exhaustive listing of transitional fossils. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I've seen enough of Talk Origins to know they can't be trusted. If they can't be straightforward with the obvious I'm not about to trust them with the obscure.

And here are more pictures of actual transtional fossils than you will ever need to see -- transitional fossils - Bing images .

Bing images....seriously....

Tell you what, buddy, you take up your argument of semantics with Webster. I have no need for a prolonged discussion on the possible meanings of the word "evolution".

I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.

But you have NEVER shown that. You keep saying it is and post unrelated and unconnected descriptions of science and philosophy in the vain hopes that people will agree with you, but you're continually wrong. Evolution is one thing and one thing only.

And you still haven't shown where I insulted your religion! Yes, I'm still salty about this because you haven't even made a single attempt to prove me wrong on this one way or another.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This is never all that cut and dried:

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, Wikipedia)
​

This isn't an isolated incident, case in point, the Dmanisi fossils:

So much I could respond to here if I had the time, but in this post I will limit myself to this topic since you seem to be hot on it. You keep mentioning the huge change in brain size of hominid fossils after Lucy. How can we explain the large increase in brains with Homo habilis? Simple, Homo habilis needed to be smart to survive. OK, but didn't every animal need to be smart? Well, yes, but brains are expensive. They require enormous amounts of energy, and they are limited by the size of the head that can fit through the birth canal. So for most animals, they live with the size of the head they have, and that is that. But for Homo it was different. Their ancestors had been standing upright for years, and that freed their hands up to use tools. One needs to be smart to use tools in novel ways. And they had begun to lose their hair, allowing them to participate in prolonged hunting excursions without being exhausted in the hot African sun like other animals. With enough persistence, they could eventually chase down weak animals that were exhausted in the hot sun. But most importantly, they were developing complex societies that required communication. All this required brains. Homo needed big brains so they could truly understand each other. So there was strong evolutionary pressure to expand the brain.

Ah, but there was that barrier to the head size that could come out of the birth canal. Just like computers were long limited by the infamous DOS 64K memory limit, Homo had the birth canal limit to brain size. At first hominids adapted by giving up much of the sense of smell, and having the brain concentrate on cognitive tasks instead. Neat trick, but it can only do so much. But Homo Habilis developed something new. The head and the brain of the infants began to expand after birth. This had its drawbacks. While the brain is developing, human babies are nearly helpless. It takes them a year to stand upright, and many years to be self sufficient. Other animal babies can stand within minutes of birth, and are soon ready to fend for themselves. But for Homo Habilis, the need for a larger brain was so strong, that it was worth going through a sustained period of helplessness as a child if they would end up smarter.

You mention a number of genes that had to develop over a half million years for this increase in brain size. OK, not a big problem, mutations can certainly produce 60 significant changes in a half a million years. And where there is strong pressure for a particular feature, those mutations that have that feature will stay in the gene pool. So for habilis, having had an enormous need for larger brains, those genes were selected for. It is not unusual for a particular body part to double in size in a half million years if there is strong evolutionary pressure.

This change was not overnight. Someone posted a chart earlier that showed the increase in brain size with time. But just like Moore's law took over when we exceeded the DOS 64K limit, nature took over when we began to exceed the limit imposed by the birth canal.

Back to transitionals. There is a broad range of transitional fossils leading up to humans. The brain size in adults get significantly bigger as one advances through the fossil record. See Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .

 

[xianghua]

So much I could respond to here if I had the time, but in this post I will limit myself to this topic since you seem to be hot on it. You keep mentioning the huge change in brain size of hominid fossils after Lucy. How can we explain the large increase in brains with Homo habilis? Simple, Homo habilis needed to be smart to survive. OK, but didn't every animal need to be smart? Well, yes, but brains are expensive. They require enormous amounts of energy, and they are limited by the size of the head that can fit through the birth canal. So for most animals, they live with the size of the head they have, and that is that. But for Homo it was different. Their ancestors had been standing upright for years, and that freed their hands up to use tools. One needs to be smart to use tools in novel ways. And they had begun to lose their hair, allowing them to participate in prolonged hunting excursions without being exhausted in the hot African sun like other animals. With enough persistence, they could eventually chase down weak animals that were exhausted in the hot sun. But most importantly, they were developing complex societies that required communication. All this required brains. Homo needed big brains so they could truly understand each other. So there was strong evolutionary pressure to expand the brain.

Ah, but there was that barrier to the head size that could come out of the birth canal. Just like computers were long limited by the infamous DOS 64K memory limit, Homo had the birth canal limit to brain size. At first hominids adapted by giving up much of the sense of smell, and having the brain concentrate on cognitive tasks instead. Neat trick, but it can only do so much. But Homo Habilis developed something new. The head and the brain of the infants began to expand after birth. This had its drawbacks. While the brain is developing, human babies are nearly helpless. It takes them a year to stand upright, and many years to be self sufficient. Other animal babies can stand within minutes of birth, and are soon ready to fend for themselves. But for Homo Habilis, the need for a larger brain was so strong, that it was worth going through a sustained period of helplessness as a child if they would end up smarter.

You mention a number of genes that had to develop over a half million years for this increase in brain size. OK, not a big problem, mutations can certainly produce 60 significant changes in a half a million years. And where there is strong pressure for a particular feature, those mutations that have that feature will stay in the gene pool. So for habilis, having had an enormous need for larger brains, those genes were selected for. It is not unusual for a particular body part to double in size in a half million years if there is strong evolutionary pressure.

This change was not overnight. Someone posted a chart earlier that showed the increase in brain size with time. But just like Moore's law took over when we exceeded the DOS 64K limit, nature took over when we began to exceed the limit imposed by the birth canal.

Back to transitionals. There is a broad range of transitional fossils leading up to humans. The brain size in adults get significantly bigger as one advances through the fossil record. See Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .

actually there is a big mess with the primates phylogeny. from morphological prespective there are some contradictions. for instance:

Homo floresiensis - Wikipedia

or:

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."


so again: if an hierarchy is evidence for evolution then a non-hierarchy need to be evidence against it.

 

[xianghua]

That's not what I said. I'm saying you're comparing apples and grapefruits.

Take some time and think about it.

here is what you have said:

"Pushing out the timeline for the evolution of vertebrates by about 2% is a far cry from something like finding a human skeleton fossilized alongside a 65+ million year-old dinosaur"-

so you are claiming that we cant push back human by about 50-70 my.

 

[Speedwell]

Unlike Genetics or Paleontology the Geologist isn't really giving us anything tangible. They observe decay rates over weeks, months or maybe years and projecting that over thousands if not millions of years. When it comes to many things with TOE I reserve the right to remain unconvinced, with radiometric dating I am consumed with incredulity.

It is nuclear physicists who determine what nuclear decay rates are and have been. Geologists just use radiometric dating as a tool.
Do you understand nuclear physics well enough to understand what the sweeping consequences would be if nuclear decay rates had changed enough over time to accommodate your timeline?

I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.

And it's a big yawn for that one. Universal common ancestry is an interesting conclusion from what we know about evolution. Sometimes it is considered as part of the definition of evolution and mentioned specifically, sometimes not. So what? It's not important to anybody but you.

 

[mark kennedy]

So much I could respond to here if I had the time, but in this post I will limit myself to this topic since you seem to be hot on it. You keep mentioning the huge change in brain size of hominid fossils after Lucy. How can we explain the large increase in brains with Homo habilis? Simple, Homo habilis needed to be smart to survive. OK, but didn't every animal need to be smart? Well, yes, but brains are expensive. They require enormous amounts of energy, and they are limited by the size of the head that can fit through the birth canal. So for most animals, they live with the size of the head they have, and that is that. But for Homo it was different. Their ancestors had been standing upright for years, and that freed their hands up to use tools. One needs to be smart to use tools in novel ways. And they had begun to lose their hair, allowing them to participate in prolonged hunting excursions without being exhausted in the hot African sun like other animals. With enough persistence, they could eventually chase down weak animals that were exhausted in the hot sun. But most importantly, they were developing complex societies that required communication. All this required brains. Homo needed big brains so they could truly understand each other. So there was strong evolutionary pressure to expand the brain.

One of the most striking features regarding hominids is that the cranial capacity is consistent with apes, just slightly bigger in some cases. We are not talking about limb proportions but rather the highly conserved genes related to neural functions. Most of the brain related genes would require a massive overhaul including HAR1f,SRGAP2 and 60 devo (brand new) brain related genes.

• HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 substitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
• SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
• 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy. Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'​

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

Ah, but there was that barrier to the head size that could come out of the birth canal. Just like computers were long limited by the infamous DOS 64K memory limit, Homo had the birth canal limit to brain size. At first hominids adapted by giving up much of the sense of smell, and having the brain concentrate on cognitive tasks instead. Neat trick, but it can only do so much. But Homo Habilis developed something new. The head and the brain of the infants began to expand after birth. This had its drawbacks. While the brain is developing, human babies are nearly helpless. It takes them a year to stand upright, and many years to be self sufficient. Other animal babies can stand within minutes of birth, and are soon ready to fend for themselves. But for Homo Habilis, the need for a larger brain was so strong, that it was worth going through a sustained period of helplessness as a child if they would end up smarter.

What they might need is completely beside the point, it's how this happens that matters. Mutations is brain related genes result in disease and disorder. Researchers have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).

The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)​

What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:

• 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
• A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
• Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)

You mention a number of genes that had to develop over a half million years for this increase in brain size. OK, not a big problem, mutations can certainly produce 60 significant changes in a half a million years. And where there is strong pressure for a particular feature, those mutations that have that feature will stay in the gene pool. So for habilis, having had an enormous need for larger brains, those genes were selected for. It is not unusual for a particular body part to double in size in a half million years if there is strong evolutionary pressure.

No, I'm not talking about 60 'significant changes', I'm talking about 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes in additions to a major overhaul of brain related genes across the board.

“Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes—and even that is a conservative estimate.” (Lahn, Human Evolution Was a 'Special Event'. Howard Huges Medical Institute)​

60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

This change was not overnight. Someone posted a chart earlier that showed the increase in brain size with time. But just like Moore's law took over when we exceeded the DOS 64K limit, nature took over when we began to exceed the limit imposed by the birth canal.

The human genome doesn't have an army of Microsoft research and development programmers producing regular upgrades. What you see is DNA repair mechanisms that maintain the genome, protecting against changes, especially in highly conserved genes since changes (mutations) will have dramatic and devastating consequences:

DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage, is an enzyme that joins broken nucleotides together by catalyzing the formation of an internucleotide ester bond between the phosphate backbone and the deoxyribose nucleotides. (DNA Repair)

Back to transitionals. There is a broad range of transitional fossils leading up to humans. The brain size in adults get significantly bigger as one advances through the fossil record. See Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .

Talk Origins has blown it's credibility with me sky high with this obviously erroneous statement:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Claim CB 144)​

That defies the most basic math, the 5 million indels represents 90 million base pairs:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

This had been known for years before the entire sequence was sequenced and the known divergence has remained at least 5% ever since:

Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. (Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. PNAS 2002)
​

They have no explanation for indels, a fair number over a million base pairs long.

FIGURE 6. Length distribution of large indel events (> 15 kb), as determined using paired-end sequences from chimpanzee mapped against the human genome.

That in addition to HAR1F, SRGAP2 (6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.), and 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Microsoft doesn't get software upgrades because the operating system needs them, it gets them because there is an army of software programmers producing them. The human genome has no such research and development teams, normative adaptive evolution happens primarily by preserving the fidelity of DNA sequences. Changes in protein coding genes and regulatory genes result in disease and disorder, not adaptation on an evolutionary scale:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious...If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift, (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations, (Genetics 1998)​

Indeed, mutations are the only explanation except it's the worst possible vehicle due to the devastating disease and disorder that would undoubtedly result.

 

[pitabread]

here is what you have said:

"Pushing out the timeline for the evolution of vertebrates by about 2% is a far cry from something like finding a human skeleton fossilized alongside a 65+ million year-old dinosaur"-

so you are claiming that we cant push back human by about 50-70 my.

No, I am saying that what you were comparing were radically different notions.

Go back to your original post and think about it.

 

[xianghua]

For me the, 'theory of evolution', and the phenomenon of evolution is not the same thing at all. What is more it's not a take it or leave it, I have to accept that everything has a common ancestor as being the only choice. I don't have a real problem with horses having a common ancestor but there is a priority problem here. Human evolution starts with Adam and every mammal, reptile and bird has a common ancestor represented on Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago. I have never been ambiguise about this and as far as common ancestry across the level of kingdom and phylum the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is pure undiluted mythology.


There are two issues for me here and these elaborate genealogical trees hardly address the core issue, let alone the particulars. My primary issues are the timeline and the level of taxonomic category beyond which there is no molecular basis.



Not really, not when it comes to the single biggest giant leap in our lineage, the nearly three fold expansion of the hominid line from that of apes. Given the fossil record this must have happened about 2 million years ago with virtually no precursors. It's even more telling that there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the fossil record even though Lucy and the Taung Child are suitable candidates. There is also a comprehensive history of the rise of Darwinian logic from the Piltdown hoax to the development of the stone age ape man hoax.

Yep. There were plenty of dead ends. Evolution branches out in many different directions. Some win, some lose. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.



This is never all that cut and dried:

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, Wikipedia)
​

This isn't an isolated incident, case in point, the Dmanisi fossils:

• Although the facial morphology is missing, the braincase of cranium D2280 is complete, and small in size like the rest of the Dmanisi hominins, with a endocranial capacity of 775cm3.
• Skull D2700 The cranial capacity is 600 cm3
• The edentulous skull D3444 and associated mandible D3900 has a cranial capacity of 650 cm3
• Cranium D4500 associated with the D2600 mandible represents the fifth individual (referred as Skull 5) found at Dmanisi and is the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene (1.77 million years ago). Skull 5 shows a combination of features hitherto unknown for early Homo. It has the smallest braincase of all Dmanisi individuals (546ccm) (Paleolithic Dmanisi)

The first complete skull in this treasure trove of fossils is about 200cc smaller then the celebrated earlier ones. The thing about a complete skull is you don't get to rearrange the form yielding a larger cranial capacity.



The Sedgwick sidebar was actually very interesting, I really don't know what you think is being demonstrated by this though. The way fossils work is that they are mineralized by the surrounding soil, pressure etc. So the fossil bed may well have been that old but that doesn't mean what is encased there is.



Unlike Genetics or Paleontology the Geologist isn't really giving us anything tangible. They observe decay rates over weeks, months or maybe years and projecting that over thousands if not millions of years. When it comes to many things with TOE I reserve the right to remain unconvinced, with radiometric dating I am consumed with incredulity.



I disagree, you find fossils in fragmentary fashion, being dated after being mineralized by soil samples of great age to be sure. That doesn't sound like a deal breaker, it's sounds anecdotal and presuppositional to me.



Some Creationists call themselves that but have no idea what the doctrine of creation really includes. For someone to claim to be a Creationist is perfectly fine with me, until I hear what they think of the New Testament history and miracles it's little more the an empty assertion.



I'm not worried about dogs, cats or horses. I'm not bothered by the fantastic projections from observations lasting months or years projected back into an obscure primitive history.



Some accept Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, so be it.



I had the choice early on to decide between geology or the life sciences, I was sure there was no point in pursuing radiometric dating because it proved nothing one way or the other. What I decided is the genetics is the prize.



I've seen enough of Talk Origins to know they can't be trusted. If they can't be straightforward with the obvious I'm not about to trust them with the obscure.



Bing images....seriously....


I did buddy and showed you once again that evolution isn't one thing but two. Of course you don't want to talk about it, it's enough for me to know that you know realize it.

according to berkeley site its indeed include a commondescent:

An introduction to evolution

""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
"

 

[Speedwell]

according to berkeley site its indeed include a commondescent:

An introduction to evolution

""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
"

Again, so what?

 

[mark kennedy]

according to berkeley site its indeed include a commondescent:

An introduction to evolution

""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
"

The point I made repeatedly is that it's not one thing but two. The change of allele frequencies in populations over time and universal common descent. The first definition is normative Mendelian genetics and the latter an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Nothing yet has contradicted that and here is yet another scientific definition saying exactly what I've been telling you all along.

 

[Speedwell]

The point I made repeatedly is that it's not one thing but two. The change of allele frequencies in populations over time and universal common descent. The first definition is normative Mendelian genetics and the latter an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Nothing yet has contradicted that and here is yet another scientific definition saying exactly what I've been telling you all along.

Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.

It's not one thing but two things which is the beauty of an ad hominem approach to evidential apologetics. Evolution is a phenomenon, no one has a problem with. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are equivocated with adaptive evolution because any break in the chain, like human brain evolution sends the whole theory into question. Meanwhile the naturally occurring phenomenon is just as comparable with creation as Darwinism. You just have to keep showing the obvious fact that evolution isn't one thing but two.

 

[Speedwell]

It's not one thing but two things which is the beauty of an ad hominem approach to evidential apologetics. Evolution is a phenomenon, no one has a problem with. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are equivocated with adaptive evolution because any break in the chain, like human brain evolution sends the whole theory into question. Meanwhile the naturally occurring phenomenon is just as comparable with creation as Darwinism. You just have to keep showing the obvious fact that evolution isn't one thing but two.

But you haven't shown that either "thing" amounts to metaphysical naturalism.

 

[pitabread]

Again, so what? You act as though being imprecise about whether the definition of the theory includes common descent is an attempt to put something over.

It's the classic microevolution/macroevolution divide creationists like to fling around, except just called something else in this case.

 

[doubtingmerle]

basically because we dont have a scientific evidence that evolution is true.

What an odd response. You seem to be open to many possibilities on how the variety of life came to be on earth. You refuse to tell us how you think it was done. You have not offered one iota of evidence that creation was done per some method you suggest. You refuse to pick an alternative as the way you think it was done. So if you allow all those whacky ideas as possibilties, and refuse to rule out any of them, how is it that you pick the only method that has any real evidence, macro-evolution, and rule that one out?

Because yes, we do have many evidences for Macro-evolution. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

now you can see why evolution isnt a scientific theory. we can claim everything that will not falsified the theory. even if we will find a human fossil with a dino one its ok with evolution.

Uh sorry, but the theory of evolution makes no prediction of the exact date that the first vertebrate came unto land. If the tracks you linked to prove to be valid, the date is about 5% earlier than previous evidence indicates. Since we are talking about events that happened 400 million years ago, we can certainly expect that there would be unknowns. As I explained to you, either way is consistent with evolution.

lets take one example: according to the scientific data DNA cant survive more then a my at max. so how you will explain that we found a suppose 20my DNA?

How do you know DNA cannot survive in some form after 20 million years?

 

[mark kennedy]

But you haven't shown that either "thing" amounts to metaphysical naturalism.

Then how did you know what to call it? What's more when Darwin, quoting Lamarck says all change, organic and inorganic, you don't get anymore transcedant then that.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's the classic microevolution/macroevolution divide creationists like to fling around, except just called something else in this case.

Those aren't scientific terms, evolution is and with a pretty straightforward definition. Evolution isn't one thing it's two, changing traits in populations very time and the 'naturalistic metaphysics, or actually mysticism of Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

Those aren't scientific terms

I'd say they are not particularly well defined terms, but they do show up plenty in the scientific literature (and textbooks). For example, just did a google scholar search on "microevolution" and "macroevolution" Over 30,000 papers with the term "microevolution" and another 26,000 with the term "macroevolution".

I guess you should start calling some scientists and tell them they're doing it wrong.

, evolution is and with a pretty straightforward definition. Evolution isn't one thing it's two, changing traits in populations very time and the 'naturalistic metaphysics, or actually mysticism of Darwinism.

Your definition of evolution is terrible. I mean, what is "actually mysticism of Darwinism" even supposed to mean?

I'll stick to what I find in textbooks, thanks.

 

[pitabread]

Last time I checked 42% of Americans believe God created man about 6000 years ago while the scientific and academic elite pontificate Darwinian naturalism.

Yeah, but almost 70% of Americans apparently believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Just because a lot of people choose to believe something hardly means it's valid or even sensible.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, but almost 70% of Americans apparently believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Just because a lot of people choose to believe something hardly means it's valid or even sensible.

That's from 2003 after they lied to us. Shortly after the Tonkin Bay attack, which was nothing, most people believed that fraudulent case for war. After the moon landing most people didn't believe it actually happen. The truth comes out and the power of the fraud is dispelled. For half a century the Piltdown hoax was accepted and it wasn't even a cleaver hoax. Now th3 stone age ape man myth is enjoying a lot of popularity because people believe what they want to. That could explain why fallacious logic passes for science so often.

 

[xianghua]

What an odd response. You seem to be open to many possibilities on how the variety of life came to be on earth. You refuse to tell us how you think it was done. You have not offered one iota of evidence that creation was done per some method you suggest. You refuse to pick an alternative as the way you think it was done. So if you allow all those whacky ideas as possibilties, and refuse to rule out any of them, how is it that you pick the only method that has any real evidence, macro-evolution, and rule that one out?

ok. maybe i was not clear enough about my model. so in brief: i think that all creatures kinds (by a creationism meanning) created by an intelligent and not evolved from a common ancestor. its possible that there was several creation events and maybe the earth is indeed bilions of years old. just maybe. but the main point is a speciel creation and not evolution. one of my argument for this model is the self replicating watch. in brief: if a self replicaiting watch (that made from organic components) need a designer then also nature need one. you are welcome to falsified this argument.

Because yes, we do have many evidences for Macro-evolution. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

please choose one of those suppose evidences and we will discuss about it to see if its indeed evidence for a common descent.

Uh sorry, but the theory of evolution makes no prediction of the exact date that the first vertebrate came unto land. If the tracks you linked to prove to be valid, the date is about 5% earlier than previous evidence indicates. Since we are talking about events that happened 400 million years ago, we can certainly expect that there would be unknowns. As I explained to you, either way is consistent with evolution.

if so also a human fossil with a dino one it's fine with evolution (70 my from a suppose 4 bilion years of evolution is nothing).

How do you know DNA cannot survive in some form after 20 million years?

because this is what science showing us. search for the paper : "biomolecule in fossil remains" and you will see at table 1 that dna should not survive more then 2500 years in 20c:

biololecule in fossil remain - Google Search