Define 'species'

[mark kennedy]

Two questions for you (being serious, not trying to pick a fight)

1) What WOULD qualify as evidence to establish common ancestry between any two organisms in your mind? Meaning, supposing the idea were true for a second (hypothetically), what would you expect to see with common ancestry? As such, how does this differ from what we do see? I mean this in any terms you'd like - fossils, DNA, comparative anatomy, whatever.

Frankly, I would expect a comprehensive transitional:

The oldest fossil whales are often grouped together, largely for convenience, in a taxon known as the archaeocetes. Archaeocetes show several features that modern whales lack. Their teeth, like those of most land mammals, still show differentiation into several types. (Modern whales either lack teeth, or have teeth that are all virtually identical in shape and size). Archaeocetes also had nostrils near the tip of the nose, like land mammals, rather than a blowhole on the top of the head. Some retained substantial hind limbs that would have been visible outside the animal's body; in the earliest archaeocetes, these limbs and the pelvis were attached to the vertebrae by a sacral joint, but in later ones the limbs and pelvis were not attached to the rest of the skeleton.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

Homo habilis
The type specimen was a mandible, with associated postcranial bones, and a fragmentary cranial vault; Olduvai Hominid 7 (OH 7). They based their placement of OH 7 in Homo primarily on brain expansion. Until then, an arbitrary lower limit had been set between 700cc and 800cc as the cutoff for the genus Homo. With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc. While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

The Homo habilis Debate
One debate in paleoanthropology today is whether or not ER 1470, and several other fossils previously identified as H. habilis, should be grouped into a new species, Homo rudolfensis. This classification would acknowledge that ER 1470 and the other members of Homo rudolfensis differ more from Homo habilis, sensu stricto ("in the strict sense," meaning: as originally defined), than could possibly be accounted for by variation within a population or between sexes. This would place two species of the genus Homo in Africa during the same time period in addition to two members of the genus Paranthropus, and, possibly, late surviving members of the species Australopithecus africanus. Far more complicated than the original neat, linear model.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html

Homo rudolfensis
The species Homo rudolfensis was originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen to the left, KNM ER 1470. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. It was thought that 2 million years ago there existed a single species in the genus Homo, and this species evolved in a linear fashion into modern humans.
But the differences in this skull, when compared to other habilines, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis.

Homo erectus
The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales

It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp#b22

2) If you have real doubt as to the capacity for 'microevolutionary' changes amounting to speciative events, how do you respond to empirical examples of such speciative events? You did acknowledge ring species in another thread, yes? There are examples of this in the literature, and it wouldn't be hard pointing you to many other examples of speciation, if you're interested.

The microevolutionary changes do not accumulate, thats the whole problem with this supposed theory. They revert back to the original condition because the genetic blueprint makes it so. I am sure you all have seen the peppered moths of england and the finches Darwin described in Origin of Species. Does it mean nothing to you that both of those populations have reverted back to their original form?

Now as to ring species, I know that there are times when speciation occures and that there are times when related groups are not capable of producing fertlile offspring. This is not a problem for creationism, nature was allways intended to become diverse and complicated. Still none of you have offered a definition of species, which is curious, since it is the whole point of the thread.

 

[Vance]

Mark, what evidence do you have the micro changes revert back under any other circumstances than when changes in the pressures which favor a reversion?

The problem still comes back to the point that we have more (vastly more) than enough evidence to show that micro-evolutionary changes are driven by natural pressures and there is NO reason whatsoever to think that there is some type of a limitation to continued changes if these changes will further adapt them to the environment beneficially. In short, there is no reason to think that micro changes would not just eventually add up to macro changes, and many, many reasons to think they would.

Added to this is the dramatically convincing evidence of the nested heirarchies of the whole history of species development. The paucity of a fossil record is not a surprise, but what should be a surprise to any that doubt evolution is how neatly almost all of these fossils fit into the overall development process based on their placement in time. Scientists can look at a fossil and tell you (before even knowing the dating) that it *should* fall into place roughly in time frame X, and sure enough, that is borne out by the dating. And if you asked them what should appear in time place Y, and they made an educated hypothesis, it is almost assured that if a fossil was found in that time period, it would look very much like what was hypothesized. True, there are anomolies, but they are just that: rare events, not the norm. The point is that if evolution was not correct in its general principals, then none of this would be possible.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is puzzleing that the fossils offered as evidence are not addressed. What is even more puzzling is that you seem to be oblivious that the Mendel laws of inheritance demonstrate that the population will revert back to the traits of the grandparents. What is ultimatly the most puzzling part of this whole thread is that Darwin's undiscoverable species is the model by which all of this is built.

Vance, you are an educated man, define species. It may well be problematic but unless you want it designated 'undiscoverable' then it has to be done. By the way, it allready has been in the synthesis.

 

[gluadys]

What is even more puzzling is that you seem to be oblivious that the Mendel laws of inheritance demonstrate that the population will revert back to the traits of the grandparents.

Mark, I understand this is what happens when there is no selective pressure. What puzzles me is why you think it would continue to be inevitable in the face of selection pressure.

If selection pressure continues in one direction, would you not inevitably get to the point that the species cannot revert to one of its grandparents, but has made an irreversible commitment to the other?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I understand this is what happens when there is no selective pressure. What puzzles me is why you think it would continue to be inevitable in the face of selection pressure.

If selection pressure continues in one direction, would you not inevitably get to the point that the species cannot revert to one of its grandparents, but has made an irreversible commitment to the other?

By selective presure I assume you are talking about the geographic condition the population finds itself in. This is really nothing more then adaptation. Ok, we know that there are certain factors that alter allele frequencies and thereby contribute to evolution. At this point the creationist is lost right?

Hardy-Weinberg equilbrium-Random mating, no migrations, genetic drift, mutation or natural selection. The result being that no allele frequencies change.

Nonrandom mating- individules seek mates within subpopulation. The result is favored genotypes in prevalance.

Migration- many genotypes leave...I am not sure why. The result is Genotypes that leave become fewer.

Genetic drift- chance event restricts alleles to a subset of ancestral population. The result, new population forums from subset of genotypes in original population.

Mutation- One genotype becomes another. The result is a new genetic variant appears in population. Not one documented case in higher taxa but lets move on.

Natural selction- No longer produces fertile offspring, due to environmental change. The result is one genotype becomes less prevelant.


My dear this is far more complicated then you may have been led to believe. I am allways delighted that you respond to my posts and allways impressed with your writting. What has me puzzled is that you buy into this modern mythology and defend it so vigerously. I am convinced that I have an answer for evolution as it is popularly believed and taught, but I am at a loss to explain how you ended up in their camp. Say the word I will bring an army of armed creationists to break you out. Come over to our side, the literature is much more poetic.

 

[mikeynov]

Frankly, I would expect a comprehensive transitional

This is the main part I'm looking for. I wasn't talking specifics yet, so I'm not sure why you started going for whale ancestry and the history of the homo genus already.

The next question is why you would expect a 'comprehensive' transitional? Ie what part of fossilization itself in respect to its time courses would indicate to you that we WOULD have snapshots of 'all' life in some neat, tidy, way? Do you believe some organisms fossilize better than others?

And if I were to show you a fairly convincing series of lineage, would you accept ANY common ancestry (if not universal)? One step at a time here.

The microevolutionary changes do not accumulate, thats the whole problem with this supposed theory. They revert back to the original condition because the genetic blueprint makes it so.

This is a very bold claim that definitely requires empirical evidence. Anything peer-reviewed would be good, for a starter. Though if this will sponsor a debate about the bias and conspiracy that is peer-review, I'd at least like SOMETHING to know what the hell you're talking about

I am sure you all have seen the peppered moths of england and the finches Darwin described in Origin of Species. Does it mean nothing to you that both of those populations have reverted back to their original form?

I'd like to see the citation for Darwin's finches. Either way, no, this would not tremendously bother me, since evolution isn't quite the 'building up' process you imply. At the level of 'microevolution' we're speaking allele frequencies 'changing in a population over time.' Also, the amount of time both of these organisms have been studied is the tiniest fraction of geologic time, and I WOULDN'T expect to see much change, nor would be bothered if the moths went from predominantly black to white again.

Now as to ring species, I know that there are times when speciation occures and that there are times when related groups are not capable of producing fertlile offspring. This is not a problem for creationism, nature was allways intended to become diverse and complicated. Still none of you have offered a definition of species, which is curious, since it is the whole point of the thread.

Okay, now I'm confused. So speciation DOES occur? If speciation does occur, are you suggesting that it somehow de-occurs, similar to what you were implying in the paragraphs preceding this? You seem to suggest that 'microevolutionary changes' don't add up because organisms will 'revert back' (this is a very strong claim demanding very strong empirical evidence, as a reminder), but here you accept speciation and that nature was always intended to 'become diverse and complicated.'

I'm seeing a contradiction, perhaps you could clarify?

 

[mikeynov]

Hardy-Weinberg equilbrium-Random mating, no migrations, genetic drift, mutation or natural selection. The result being that no allele frequencies change.

p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1

Nonrandom mating- individules seek mates within subpopulation. The result is favored genotypes in prevalance.

*Nods*

Migration- many genotypes leave...I am not sure why. The result is Genotypes that leave become fewer.

Migration goes both ways, actually. It isn't just 'genotypes leaving.' Migration refers to the gain or loss of genetic material in a population via the entrance or exit of members to that population. In the case of other members entering, the source is (usually) adjacent populations.

Genetic drift- chance event restricts alleles to a subset of ancestral population. The result, new population forums from subset of genotypes in original population.

Small populations may see chance events which serve to eliminate certain members of the ppoulation disproportionately to their numbers in the population, such that an allele may shift towards higher or lower values.

Mutation- One genotype becomes another. The result is a new genetic variant appears in population. Not one documented case in higher taxa but lets move on.

Rather, a change in genotype, which does not always lead to a change in phenotype. Not one documented case of mutations in higher taxa? Are you serious?

Natural selction- No longer produces fertile offspring, due to environmental change. The result is one genotype becomes less prevelant.

Nor is this the definition of natural selection. Natural selection as a process refers to an environment favoring certain genotypes over others, such that the alleles composing said favored genotype increase relative to the frequency of the alleles of less favored genotypes.

My dear this is far more complicated then you may have been led to believe. I am allways delighted that you respond to my posts and allways impressed with your writting. What has me puzzled is that you buy into this modern mythology and defend it so vigerously. I am convinced that I have an answer for evolution as it is popularly believed and taught, but I am at a loss to explain how you ended up in their camp. Say the word I will bring an army of armed creationists to break you out. Come over to our side, the literature is much more poetic.

Well, this can be kind of complicated, but it's not THAT hard to understand, at least in terms of the basics of ToE.

Speaking personally for a moment (as you did with this poster), what is your background in science, exactly? Do you feel it rational to suggest some sort of grand conspiracy in biology such that everybody conveniently forgot for the past 150 years that the modern evolutionary model is somehow stupid or ill-supported? I'm sure you are convinced that you've somehow discovered errors where Nobel laureates and most of the giants of biology for the past century and a half have failed, but the hubris involved with such a mindset always puzzled me.

 

[Vance]

In a recent lecture on Biological Anthropology, I heard about the Finch reference (assuming it is what Mark is referring to). There was a husband and wife team who recently did some extensive research in the Galapagos over many years and studied the Finches once again. What they discovered was actually evolution in action. The Finches eat seeds, two types of seeds in particular. One is soft and the other hard and each is handled significantly better with specific beak shapes. Since the soft ones are easier to eat, the beak shaped that works with that seed was predominant. Then there was a drought, and the soft seeds became very rare, leaving only the hard seeds in ready numbers. They found that within a single generation, they saw a distinct increase in the number of Finches with the beaks needed for the harder seeds. By the second, it was a very large number. Then the drought was over and the soft seeds came back. Not surprisingly, with the pressure now favoring the softer seeds, the "soft-seed" beaks were soon predominant once again.

This was presented NOT as some type of "reversion" to some norm, but very simply evolution in action, and at a pace that astonished the observers.

I really would like to see a specific reference from a valid scientific source (ie, not a Creationist source) that there is a trend to revert back to an earlier morphology *without* this reversal being favored by the current pressures.

 

[Loudmouth]

The microevolutionary changes do not accumulate, thats the whole problem with this supposed theory.

Then why do we see more people with the sickle cell gene in areas with endemic malaria than in areas without malaria?

They revert back to the original condition because the genetic blueprint makes it so. I am sure you all have seen the peppered moths of england and the finches Darwin described in Origin of Species. Does it mean nothing to you that both of those populations have reverted back to their original form?

We aren't talking about mutations being reversed but allele frequencies returning to previous levels AFTER A SELECTIVE PRESSURE WAS REMOVED. The finches and peppered moths are stunning examples of how selective pressures can favor one allele over another.

Let's take the peppered moths as an example of how poor your understanding of genetics and evolution is. Melanism (darkness) in the moths is a dominant allele. In other words, it masks the white allele. What happened is that the allele was selected against but the allele was still present in the surrounding populations of moths. When the selective pressure was removed the surrounding populations spread the dominant allele through the population as it was no longer selected against. Also, there were still dark moths in the areas where it was being selected against as well, although they were certainly fewer in number than in rural areas. What we don't see is 1) the production of a new allele through mutation, 2) a reversal of any mutations whatsoever, 3) the "blueprint" of anything doing anything. What the study did show is that if a beneficial allele were present it would be selected for even if there were another dominant allele that could mask it's effects. It is stunning proof that beneficial alleles can accumulate in a population if the selective pressure is kept constant.

Now as to ring species, I know that there are times when speciation occures and that there are times when related groups are not capable of producing fertlile offspring. This is not a problem for creationism, nature was allways intended to become diverse and complicated. Still none of you have offered a definition of species, which is curious, since it is the whole point of the thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[mark kennedy]

p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1

*Nods*

Migration goes both ways, actually. It isn't just 'genotypes leaving.' Migration refers to the gain or loss of genetic material in a population via the entrance or exit of members to that population. In the case of other members entering, the source is (usually) adjacent populations.

Small populations may see chance events which serve to eliminate certain members of the ppoulation disproportionately to their numbers in the population, such that an allele may shift towards higher or lower values.

Rather, a change in genotype, which does not always lead to a change in phenotype. Not one documented case of mutations in higher taxa? Are you serious?

Nor is this the definition of natural selection. Natural selection as a process refers to an environment favoring certain genotypes over others, such that the alleles composing said favored genotype increase relative to the frequency of the alleles of less favored genotypes.

Oh I am serious about the lack of mutations in higher taxa, you can be very sure of that. Now as far as a change in genotype not changing the phenotype, I have to ask, are you serious?

Well, this can be kind of complicated, but it's not THAT hard to understand, at least in terms of the basics of ToE.

Agreed!

Speaking personally for a moment (as you did with this poster), what is your background in science, exactly?

I really have none, sorry about that.

Do you feel it rational to suggest some sort of grand conspiracy in biology such that everybody conveniently forgot for the past 150 years that the modern evolutionary model is somehow stupid or ill-supported?

The modern biology model never needed and can't support Darwinian evolution. Genetics is fine on its own and the universal common ancestor model is seriously flawed.

I'm sure you are convinced that you've somehow discovered errors where Nobel laureates and most of the giants of biology for the past century and a half have failed, but the hubris involved with such a mindset always puzzled me.

I am reminded of the prayer of Luther at the diet of worms (no joke that is what it is called),'Can I be right and the whole world be wrong?' the answer is yes. I don't know what a 'humris' is but I think the fact that the actual evidence being ignored is proof positive of the flaw in evolutionary reasoning.

Where is the defintion I asked for, why so much buildup, why not just define the term and move on from there? Is it 'undiscoverable' after all?

 

[Physics_guy]

Where is the defintion I asked for, why so much buildup, why not just define the term and move on from there? Is it 'undiscoverable' after all?

As has been explained to you dozens of times in this thread alone - the term species is difficult to define absolutely because there are border cases. No one can make an absolute definition for the term that accurately and objectively defines all groups of organisms. This is something that one would expect if the ToE inclusive of Common Ancestry is true.

 

[Physics_guy]

Oh I am serious about the lack of mutations in higher taxa, you can be very sure of that.

Would you change your opinion if you were shown examples of mutations in humans?

I hate to break this to you, but your own DNA contains several mutations.

 

[mikeynov]

Now as far as a change in genotype not changing the phenotype, I have to ask, are you serious?

Yes. Why would phenotype change if a mutation within a given codon called for the coding of the same amino acid? Many mutations are neutral - have no impact on phenotype whatsoever, because it does not impact the proteins that genes wind up coding for. So yes, I'm rather serious.

Agreed!

Gotta start somewhere

I really have none, sorry about that.

This isn't a problem, but one's exposure to material at an academic level does tend to color one's perspective. In this case, while you appear to have a pretty good grasp of ToE, you probably don't have any direct exposure to evidence (the various peer reviewed journals in biology, for example).

The modern biology model never needed and can't support Darwinian evolution. Genetics is fine on its own and the universal common ancestor model is seriously flawed.

Yes, I understand you believe this.

I am reminded of the prayer of Luther at the diet of worms (no joke that is what it is called),'Can I be right and the whole world be wrong?' the answer is yes. I don't know what a 'humris' is but I think the fact that the actual evidence being ignored is proof positive of the flaw in evolutionary reasoning.

Hubris - excess pride.

Um, yes, it's certainly possible you're right, but you're also speaking matter of factly about the 'myth' that is evolution without any formal background in the subject, apparently. I understand how hard this is to do - my thoughts on exercise physiology developed on their own before I was exposed to the subject at an academic level, and my thoughts after that exposure markedly shifted as my worldview was forced to change due to encountering new evidence and reasoning.

I would suspect that some time within biology curricula might have a similar impact upon you.

Where is the defintion I asked for, why so much buildup, why not just define the term and move on from there? Is it 'undiscoverable' after all?

The short answer is that there's more than one working definition of 'species.'

Unfortunately, I do not have 15 posts so as to link you to a good discussion of this within talk.origins (if you can bear to read something from that site).

The Biological Species Concept revolves around the idea of 'a group of organisms capable of producing reproducable (fertile) offspring with each other, but not other groups.'

However, there are other working definitions (look up speciation on talk.origins). Obviously, I'm guessing we both agree in the idea of a species, but characterizing this such that we can properly classify organisms using this distinction can be somewhat tricky. The sort of firm line you're looking for may not exist at the species level, and I'm not sure we'd expect it to. For example, in sexually reproducing organisms, the line is generally drawn when two organisms become 'different enough' such that they can no longer produce reproducable offspring. It wouldn't be absurd to suggest, however, that there could be instances where organisms might 'sometimes' be able to produce such offspring. How would we categorize this?

We have a good 3 or 4 definitions of species I'm aware of, and it isn't that these are separate concepts, but rather different ways of looknig at the same idea within particular contexts.

And if you're aiming to point out shortcomings in these definitions, scientists have been leveling such criticisms for a long time. If you want more comprehensive explanations for what definitions exist, let me know, but I'm not sure why you're asking when this information is only a google away.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Vance, you are an educated man, define species. It may well be problematic but unless you want it designated 'undiscoverable' then it has to be done.

What's wrong with the definition I gave you?

 

[Aron-Ra]

The microevolutionary changes do not accumulate, thats the whole problem with this supposed theory.

Mark, what evidence do you have the micro changes revert back under any other circumstances than when changes in the pressures which favor a reversion?

In the debate with me, Mark Kennedy has already admitted that "micro changes" do in fact culminate into macroevolutionary results.

Are any of the Hominines related to any other Hominids?

Yes I think these rare and highly questionable fossils may well be apes with superficial simularities to humans.

Are any of the Hominids related to any other Hominoids?

Yes, and I suspect they may well be descendants, just not ancestoral to humans.

Are any Hominoids related to other Catarrhine primates?

Yes the Hominoids and Catarrhine primates have features that indicate they were both apes or monkeys of some sort.

Species that have grown further apart have built up more differences between them, more genetic peculiarities that are unique to each of them. The result when these mix is a hybrid, which is usually (but not always) infertile. The further two groups have diverged from one another, the less likely they will be to produce a viable hybrid. The more they grow apart, the more often their hybrids will be sterile to either ancestral group until there are none to bridge the widening gap anymore.
I need to know if you accept this statement also.

I think you are describing ring species and I know that such things happen. I accept this statement unconditionally.

Clearly, Mark Kennedy does concede that micro-changes can (and have) lead to macroevolutionary results, and that these results have remained in place even when the environmental pressures he alleges are no longer an issue.

 

[Aron-Ra]

1) What WOULD qualify as evidence to establish common ancestry between any two organisms in your mind?

Frankly, I would expect a comprehensive transitional:

Then read the rest of your post, 'cuz there they are.

What's wrong with all these comprehensive transitionals in your own list?

The oldest fossil whales are often grouped together, largely for convenience, in a taxon known as the archaeocetes. Archaeocetes show several features that modern whales lack. Their teeth, like those of most land mammals, still show differentiation into several types. (Modern whales either lack teeth, or have teeth that are all virtually identical in shape and size). Archaeocetes also had nostrils near the tip of the nose, like land mammals, rather than a blowhole on the top of the head. Some retained substantial hind limbs that would have been visible outside the animal's body; in the earliest archaeocetes, these limbs and the pelvis were attached to the vertebrae by a sacral joint, but in later ones the limbs and pelvis were not attached to the rest of the skeleton.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

Homo habilis
The type specimen was a mandible, with associated postcranial bones, and a fragmentary cranial vault; Olduvai Hominid 7 (OH 7). They based their placement of OH 7 in Homo primarily on brain expansion. Until then, an arbitrary lower limit had been set between 700cc and 800cc as the cutoff for the genus Homo. With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc. While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

The Homo habilis Debate
One debate in paleoanthropology today is whether or not ER 1470, and several other fossils previously identified as H. habilis, should be grouped into a new species, Homo rudolfensis. This classification would acknowledge that ER 1470 and the other members of Homo rudolfensis differ more from Homo habilis, sensu stricto ("in the strict sense," meaning: as originally defined), than could possibly be accounted for by variation within a population or between sexes. This would place two species of the genus Homo in Africa during the same time period in addition to two members of the genus Paranthropus, and, possibly, late surviving members of the species Australopithecus africanus. Far more complicated than the original neat, linear model.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html

Homo rudolfensis
The species Homo rudolfensis was originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen to the left, KNM ER 1470. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. It was thought that 2 million years ago there existed a single species in the genus Homo, and this species evolved in a linear fashion into modern humans.
But the differences in this skull, when compared to other habilines, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis.

Homo erectus
The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

To this point, I see no problem with any of these. I do however see that there are some things in each of these accounts that you've overlooked or didn't know about. What did you think was wrong with any of these examples?

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.

Which are?

The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales

But by the Bible only, not by scientists, and certainly not by evoilutionary scientists.

It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

That's because evolution disproved the scala naturae, and replaced it with the tree of life.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp#b22

Don't quote Trueorigin. I promise you there is nothing true about their site. Nothing in the unverse is certain. But we're still pretty sure of the dates for these transitional cetaceans. Now, once again, what do you think is wrong with any of the comprehensive transitionals you just listed?

 

[gluadys]

By selective presure I assume you are talking about the geographic condition the population finds itself in.

No, I am talking about any kind of selective pressure. I am not talking about allopatric speciation. Let's stick to Mendel's basics. Because you have me totally confused as to whether you understand them.

And sure I know there are many complexities. The point is, we can't begin to tackle the complexities until the basics are down pat. So throwing them up now is just dancing around the question without answering it.

So, in spite of the many complexities, I want to talk basics first.

Several times you have mentioned not just the H-W equilbrium, but the 3:1 ratio specifically. I want to know if you understand and agree that a 3:1 ratio in phenotype implies a 1:1 ratio in alleles.

Second, do you agree Mendels' work was based primarily on crossing two varieties which bred pure for the trait(s) he was testing, e.g. smooth or wrinked skin, yellow or green seed colour, etc. What does that imply for the genotype of the parents of the F1 generation.

You know the words "dominant" and "recessive". I am not sure you know what they mean. How do they explain the phenotypes of the F1 and F2 generations?

Mendel had no interest I know of in subjecting his plants to selection pressures. Rather he needed to give all his test subjects an equal opportunity to reproduce.

What if he had decided to impose a selective pressure. How would he exert a selective pressure in favour of a dominant trait? What would be the expected result in the next two-three generations? How would this differ if he exerted a selective pressure in favour of a recessive trait?


Now on to the rest of your post (the dancing).

This is really nothing more then adaptation.

Creationist mantra: Evolution is not evolution. The above sentence ought to read "This is really nothing more than evolution." because that's what adaptation is. Or to be a little more precise, adaptation is the outcome of evolution. In short, no evolution = no adaptation.

Ok, we know that there are certain factors that alter allele frequencies and thereby contribute to evolution.

Yes, collectively known as selection pressures.

Hardy-Weinberg equilbrium-Random mating, no migrations, genetic drift, mutation or natural selection. The result being that no allele frequencies change.

ok.

Nonrandom mating- individules seek mates within subpopulation. The result is favored genotypes in prevalance.

Genotypes and phenotypes. After all what is being selected is a phenotype. It is the selection of the favored phenotype that results in a favoured genotype. btw, this is also evolution.

Migration- many genotypes leave...I am not sure why. The result is Genotypes that leave become fewer.

Generally incorrect. No reason migration per se should depend on specific genotypes unless it is a question of exploiting a new habitat for which one genotype is fitter than another. Nor does migration make the genotypes that leave fewer. It just puts them somewhere else.


The separating populations need not have different genotypic ratios at the time of migration. However, they may well have different genotypic ratios sometime after the separation since each group accumulates different changes. This again is evolution.

Genetic drift- chance event restricts alleles to a subset of ancestral population. The result, new population forums from subset of genotypes in original population.

ok. Speaking of complexities, I think this is too simple. I expect there are more scenarios for genetic drift than this. And note that this too is evolution.

Mutation- One genotype becomes another. The result is a new genetic variant appears in population. Not one documented case in higher taxa but lets move on.

Since mutations normally occur in the individual cells of individual organisms why on earth would you expect to document a case in higher taxa which are large groups of species? Mutation does not even occur at the species level. It has to be spread from the individual organism in which it first occurs through the population. So what's with documenting mutations in higher taxa. That's crazy talk.

Also, it seems you are skipping a step: how do you get from a mutation in the genotype of an individual to a variant in the population?

Natural selction- No longer produces fertile offspring, due to environmental change. The result is one genotype becomes less prevelant.

Shades of razzelflaben!!! Natural selection has nothing to do with inability to produce fertile offspring. And that is not the means by which one genotype becomes less prevalent (or more prevalent) in the population. "less" and "more" prevalent, of course, are just two sides of the same coin. A favoured phenotype (and its underlying genotype) become more prevalent. This necessarily means the less favoured phenotypes (and their underlying genotypes) become less prevalent.

My dear this is far more complicated then you may have been led to believe.

Oh, its way complicated, but misunderstanding can make it more complicated than it needs to be.

I am allways delighted that you respond to my posts and allways impressed with your writting. What has me puzzled is that you buy into this modern mythology and defend it so vigerously. I am convinced that I have an answer for evolution as it is popularly believed and taught, but I am at a loss to explain how you ended up in their camp.

Simple. Evolution makes scientific sense. The evidence is compelling. Remember, I learned evolution from creationists first. So I know how it dodges all the real evidence, and misrepresents the science.

Come over to our side, the literature is much more poetic.

Indeed it is. Too bad more creationists don't appreciate it as such.

 

[gluadys]

Now as far as a change in genotype not changing the phenotype, I have to ask, are you serious?

Absolutely! So you DON'T understand the terms "dominant" and "recessive". If you did it should be obvious why a change in genotype will not necessarily change the phenotype. Not to mention other reasons why a change in genotype will have no effect on phenotype.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh I am serious about the lack of mutations in higher taxa, you can be very sure of that.

interesting, so how do you account for the fact that these mutations in higher taxa have actually been observed?

Now as far as a change in genotype not changing the phenotype, I have to ask, are you serious?

yes, differences in genotype do not always translate to differences in phenotype.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, and it's not really meant to be one - if you feel it is an attack on you then I will edit this and remove it, but you really do need to learn som elementary genetics it seems, I fail to see how you can make all the judgements on evolution that you make with so little knowledge. do you really think you are being intellectually honest here? What books on evolution have you actually read? how much do you actually know about the things you doubt? please, for the love of all that is good, actually learn some of the stuff you talk about. I have seen you make a number of really fundamental errors and these are not the first ones. you're an intelligent chap, you need to actually learn what you are talking about rather than just dismiss it without any proper understanding.

 

[Jet Black]

By selective presure I assume you are talking about the geographic condition the population finds itself in. This is really nothing more then adaptation. Ok, we know that there are certain factors that alter allele frequencies and thereby contribute to evolution. At this point the creationist is lost right?

there is alot more to it than the geographic situation, pressures can also occur within the species itself, such as sexual selection and so on, leading to evolutionary pressures on genes purely as a result of mate choice. then there is the occurance of new predators, or predators in themselves that are evolving.

Hardy-Weinberg equilbrium-Random mating, no migrations, genetic drift, mutation or natural selection. The result being that no allele frequencies change.

Nonrandom mating- individules seek mates within subpopulation. The result is favored genotypes in prevalance.

Migration- many genotypes leave...I am not sure why. The result is Genotypes that leave become fewer.

there is also immigration too.

Genetic drift- chance event restricts alleles to a subset of ancestral population. The result, new population forums from subset of genotypes in original population.

Mutation- One genotype becomes another. The result is a new genetic variant appears in population. Not one documented case in higher taxa but lets move on.

dealt with in other posts, but mutations have been observed. alot of them in fact.

Natural selction- No longer produces fertile offspring, due to environmental change. The result is one genotype becomes less prevelant.

natural selection is rather a subset of "differential reproductive success" the offspring might still be fertile, but not as reproductively successful as other offspring, for a number of reasons.

My dear this is far more complicated then you may have been led to believe. I am allways delighted that you respond to my posts and allways impressed with your writting. What has me puzzled is that you buy into this modern mythology and defend it so vigerously. I am convinced that I have an answer for evolution as it is popularly believed and taught, but I am at a loss to explain how you ended up in their camp. Say the word I will bring an army of armed creationists to break you out. Come over to our side, the literature is much more poetic.

umm... did you forget that you were wrong about what you said about mendel?