Evidence for macroevolution

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Oftentimes they don't. Some creatures have lost features entirely, like whales have lost their legs. Other features degrade to only a vestigial form, like the human appendix or the leg spurs on some snakes.

Assumed to be vestigal. You know, like the vestigal legs in a whale that managed to survive without a pelvis long enough to develop the brand new function of supporting the genitals. You guys crack me up.

(The picture actually shows only a fraction of the extinct elephant species)

Really? I wonder why? Could it be possible to find the answer in one of the links?

Minchenella or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids.

Ah, yes. You can't even get the head of a brontosaurus right, but you can tell from a lower jaw that this is an ancestor of the elephant. Ah, but we're very humble here. It only says "the most plausible". Nice to see that people think there's room for error when you only have a fossil of a lower jaw to work with.

Phenacolophus (late Paleocene or early Eocene) -- An early embrithopod (very early, slightly elephant-like condylarths), thought to be the stem-group of all elephants.

Thought to be. Imagined to be. Well, that proves it.

Moeritherium, Numidotherium, Barytherium (early-mid Eocene) -- A group of three similar very early elephants. It is unclear which of the three came first. Pig-sized with stout legs, broad spreading feet and flat hooves. Elephantish face with the eye set far forward & a very deep jaw. Second incisors enlarged into short tusks, in upper and lower jaws; little first incisors still present; loss of some teeth. No trunk.

Paleomastodon, Phiomia (early Oligocene) -- The first "mastodonts", a medium-sized animals with a trunk, long lower jaws, and short upper and lower tusks. Lost first incisors and canines. Molars still have heavy rounded cusps, with enamel bands becoming irregular. Phiomia was up to eight feet tall.

GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap again. No elephant fossils at all for several million years.

No trunk. Trunk. Then big gap. Gosh, the evidence for gradual evolution is overwhelming.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

Ah, yes. You can't even get the head of a brontosaurus right, but you can tell from a lower jaw that this is an ancestor of the elephant. Ah, but we're very humble here. It only says "the most plausible". Nice to see that people think there's room for error when you only have a fossil of a lower jaw to work with.
...
Thought to be. Imagined to be. Well, that proves it.
...
No trunk. Trunk. Then big gap. Gosh, the evidence for gradual evolution is overwhelming.

Your colors are showing Nick... Your criticisms of the evidence pertinent to elephant evolution may be valid. Certainly the elephant series isn't the most complete of the fossil record.

The fossils are there though. Modern elephants didn't exist before similar animals existed in the past.

All of this evidence for elephant evolution was put in here for the one reason of adding to this thread, and for the other reason of showing how clearly this statement of yours turns out to be bunk:

quote:
We simply ASSUME that every minute mutation somehow miraculously helped its success because we have similar-to-reptile-mammals and we have elephants, and we simply BELIEVE that one must have turned into the other.

You have been de-bunked again sir.

 

[Jerry Smith]

More evidence: Vestigial structures

Definitions of the word "vestigial" vary, and some creationists like to use very strict definitions in order to disqualify certain vestigial structures from consideration. That is not to say that the strict definition is wrong necessarily, nor that it is never used in scientific circles, only that, when used for this purpose it is a "smoke and mirrors" tactic to draw attention away from the significance of a vestigial structure.

To the end of relating the evidence, I will use the definition of vestigial that makes sense of the evidence:
structures that have lost some major function. This is not to say that they have not been coopted for any other function or that they do not continue to serve any functions that they served in their ancestral species. You will probably see what this means when you look at an example or two:

Snake legs and pelvises:
from http://www.chaffeezoo.org/zoo/animals/boaFamily.html:

Both pythons and boas are primitive snakes with vestiges of hind limbs (especially in males) and pelvis and two well developed lungs.

These hind limbs and pelvises may serve some function, but they are no longer involved in locomotion. Furthermore, they are not essential to snakes in general, as other families lack them... from the same page:

Other snake families have no trace of pelvis or hind limbs and have lost the left lung.

The human tail-bone is another example. Yes, some muscles attach to it. No, it no longer serves the purposes that it serves in monkeys and some other primates - that is, to serve as skeletal support for a prehensile tail, and as a point for attaching muscles to control tail movement. Further the human coccyx retains a high degree of homology with all other primate tail-bones. Evolution predicts such vestigial structures (and predicts that sometimes they will retain part of their function or even be coopted to serve a new funciton). No other theory predicts the existence of vestigial structures at all, though several can accomodate them.

There are many, many, vestigial structures to be observed in nature. For a short list, see http://www.webcom.com/petrich/writings/Vestigial.txt

 

[randman]

Similar animals in the past, as you state, is explained perfectly fine by God working as an artist.

 

[chickenman]

its also explained perfectly well by mutation and natural selection

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You have been de-bunked again sir.

I'll say. Your "evidence" of elephants going from no trunk to trunk with no intermediates surely debunked my claim that the inbetween stages are only assumed.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

The human tail-bone is another example. Yes, some muscles attach to it. No, it no longer serves the purposes that it serves in monkeys and some other primates - that is, to serve as skeletal support for a prehensile tail, and as a point for attaching muscles to control tail movement.

Again, this illustrates the narrow-mindedness that results from evolutionist thinking. If the human tailbone never actually served any other purpose than being a human tailbone, most evolutionists will never find out because they think only in terms of evolutionary explanations.

And what do they have to prove that a human tailbone had another purpose at one time? Imagination! It looks vestigal to the evolutionist, therefore because the evolutionist imagines it to be vestigal, it IS vestigal. They are even undaunted by the fact that it may have a purpose today, discovered or undiscovered, because the facts don't matter. Only the imagination does.

Now show me Procol Harum's vestigal virgins and then we'll have something to talk about.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

There are many, many, vestigial structures to be observed in nature. For a short list, see http://www.webcom.com/petrich/writings/Vestigial.txt

What, no mention of the uselses organ, the "appendix," in that list? I wonder why?

Oh, right -- scientists make mistakes. They sometimes think an organ (or some other feature) is a useless vestigal feature and then someone goes and discovers why it is useful. Well, that proves evolution all right.

 

[chickenman]

explain what purpose a wing permanently encased in a flightless beatle's carapace has?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
explain what purpose a wing permanently encased in a flightless beatle's carapace has?

I can't, in part because I have no idea what beetle you're talking about. But even if I knew, I'd be in good company, since so many scientists couldn't explain the function of tonsils and the appendix for so long.

I'm hoping, however, that you'll explain what vestigal features have to do with the contradiction between what you evolutionists here on this board claimed and what the facts show. You said that the evolution of the elephant's trunk is easy to demonstrate, but the links you provided as evidence show just the opposite -- that there is precious little evidence, and the distant so-called relatives are tied together only by imagination.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Again, this illustrates the narrow-mindedness that results from evolutionist thinking. If the human tailbone never actually served any other purpose than being a human tailbone, most evolutionists will never find out because they think only in terms of evolutionary explanations.

And what do they have to prove that a human tailbone had another purpose at one time? Imagination! It looks vestigal to the evolutionist, therefore because the evolutionist imagines it to be vestigal, it IS vestigal. They are even undaunted by the fact that it may have a purpose today, discovered or undiscovered, because the facts don't matter. Only the imagination does.

Now show me Procol Harum's vestigal virgins and then we'll have something to talk about.

Nick you are right. You win. Snake legs aren't vestigial. After all they might have a function! What could I ever have been thinking? Just because snakes don't use legs to walk, doesn't mean that the fact that many male boa constrictors have them is evidence for evolution. Just because most other families of snakes don't need them for anything at all (as evidenced by the fact that they don't have them...) has no bearing on this. We should never, ever assume that SNAKE LEGS are vestigial!!!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

What, no mention of the uselses organ, the "appendix," in that list? I wonder why?

Oh, right -- scientists make mistakes. They sometimes think an organ (or some other feature) is a useless vestigal feature and then someone goes and discovers why it is useful. Well, that proves evolution all right.

Live and learn.

That isn't just a truism to brush aside this example of a vestigial organ which was discovered to have a minor function - it is advice to you. You have a lot more learning to do on this subject.

Now, I do too: I don't know enough about it to know if the appendix is vestigial in that it performs some other function in other mammals or primates that it does not perform in humans. If so, this is a case where a vestigial structure was coopted for a different use.

On the other hand, I don't know. Maybe the appendix is vestigial in performing only for a few months or years the function that it performs throughout life in other mammals or primates. Or not performing it as well. Or having lost parts of its function.

And, I don't know: perhaps it was mistakenly classified as vestigial in the first place.

The way I understand it, the appendix is a repository for extra antibodies or some such for a while during the first few months or years of life, and bolsters the immune system a little bit. If this is the case, one is still left to wonder why it needs to be so big, and why it has the anatomical structure it possesses... One wonders if there is no way the same function could have been served by a smaller organ not prone to death-causing infection...

I'm not going to make it my personal project to find out. If you decide to, though, I'd like to hear what you learn.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I'll say. Your "evidence" of elephants going from no trunk to trunk with no intermediates surely debunked my claim that the inbetween stages are only assumed.

Your claim was that it was assumed that elephants with trunks must have evolved from reptile-like mammals: your claim was that there was no evidence of such a transition. Your claim has been debunked, by the existence of trunked animals that precede modern elephants. Your claim has been further debunked by the existence of non-trunked animals similar to and preceding trunked animals.

It may not be the most or best evidence (compared to the reptile-mammal transition, for instance), but it is evidence. Therefore your claim that elephant-trunk evolution was merely "assumed" is bogus.

Not that it would matter much. If there was not a single predecessor to modern elephants after the synapsids, but there was a fossil record of every single transition for every other modern species going all the way back to a paramecium, you would still say that it was merely an "assumption" that elephants and their trunks evolved, and the fact that we were missing most of its transitions was damning evidence against the theory of evolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Concerning the appendix, the following was posted on another board by Oolon Colluphid.

The Peyer’s patches in its wall are part of the GALT (gut-associated lymphoid tissues) involved in the immune system, sure. But Peyer’s patches are found throughout the wall of the small intestine, not just in the appendix. The same amount of GALT could be produced by simply lengthening the intestine a little. The appendix is neither special nor essential.

Vestigal doesn't mean fuctionless. The appendix is still a vestigal organ even if part of it does something.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Ah, yes. You can't even get the head of a brontosaurus right, but you can tell from a lower jaw that this is an ancestor of the elephant.

Uh the reason we can tell from the lower jaw alone is that elephants have a tooth structure unique in the animal kingdom. Just because you are ignorant of the science of comparative anatomy doesn't prove that the conclusion isn't reasonable.

Thought to be. Imagined to be. Well, that proves it.

No one is claiming "proof" of anything. We are simply offering examples of fossil creatures that progressively become more elephant-like.

No trunk. Trunk.

Here's the "no trunk" specimen, Moeritheriem:

Here's the "trunk" specimen, Phiomia:

Where's that big gap again?

 

[seebs]

Of course there's no "intermediate" stage. You can always say that it's either a trunk or not a trunk, so there's no 'intermediate' phase; there's just creatures which happen to have very tiny trunks. Of course, why didn't I see it before!

 

[Joe V.]

Can anyone explain to me, without using evolution, why do we have body hair, and why do we get goose bumps when we're cold?

- Joe

 

[randman]

"Can anyone explain to me, without using evolution, why do we have body hair, and why do we get goose bumps when we're cold?"

The same reason the sky is blue, and earth is round.

It is part of a Design, but which is fallen.

The thing most evolutionists don't take into account when they ask why isn't the world perfect is that the Bible explains it quite clearly.

I think a better question is whether history is even linear.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Your claim was that it was assumed that elephants with trunks must have evolved from reptile-like mammals: your claim was that there was no evidence of such a transition.

Actually, that wasn't my claim or my point at all. I would make that claim if it had anything to do with the discussion, but that wasn't the point of the post you claim to have debunked.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Your claim has been debunked, by the existence of trunked animals that precede modern elephants. Your claim has been further debunked by the existence of non-trunked animals similar to and preceding trunked animals.

Huh? Even if that was my point (and it wasn't) how does that debunk anything? So what if some animal seems to have existed before another animal? So what if they have some similarities? What does that prove? Nothing. You still have to make the connection with your imagination. No hard evidence. No proof.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

It may not be the most or best evidence (compared to the reptile-mammal transition, for instance), but it is evidence. Therefore your claim that elephant-trunk evolution was merely "assumed" is bogus.

ROFL!!!! You guys point to a page which summarizes the evolutionary history of elephant trunks as "THIS ONE HAS NO TRUNK...THIS NEXT ONE IN THE EVOLUTIONARY CHAIN HAS A TRUNK" and you call that debunking?

Whew!! I hear there are some openings at the National Enquirer for science experts with your qualifications.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Where's that big gap again?

Now there's an inviting straight line if ever I saw one.

Anyway, that's a pretty picture someone drew. If that person can draw all the other intermediate stages, then does that mean I'll have to give up and admit evolution is right?