Evolution 101

[Zadok]

Dear Creationist,

We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, we have prepared this text to help you out.

Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? Please answer the following yes or no questions:

1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?

2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?

4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?

5. Does evolution deny the existance of God?

6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?

7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?

8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?

9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?

10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?

11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?

12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?

Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.

Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them.

Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.

Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.

Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.

Step 7: Faqs. This newsgroup has some wonder faq files available. Read them. Carefully. All the way through.

Step 8: Congratulations, you are ready to argue against evolution. Please state your first objection.

 

[LouisBooth]

well again as brought up in another thread..transitional to what and from what?

 

[Zadok]

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]

 

[randman]

Luis, you miss the point. That would make it "intermediary." By transitional, heck, that's all of the fossils because let me give you an analogy. Analogies by the way are great pieces of evidence because we say so. We go on a trip and take pictures of mileposts, now see, according to this analogy just because we don't have pictures of every milepost doesn't mean we didn't take the trip.
See, it all makes sense.


NOT!

 

[Zadok]

Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.

Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,

Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
[Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Luis, you miss the point. That would make it "intermediary." By transitional, heck, that's all of the fossils because let me give you an analogy. Analogies by the way are great pieces of evidence because we say so. We go on a trip and take pictures of mileposts, now see, according to this analogy just because we don't have pictures of every milepost doesn't mean we didn't take the trip.
See, it all makes sense.


NOT!

In short, Louis ( and Randman), you can be skeptical to the point of nihilism.

 

[randman]

Oh, and gee, I can string together whole bunches of fossils and imagine they all evolved according to this little path I made up, and this, my friend, is proof positive.

Of course, if we later change the path and the string, it doesn't matter. It is still proof positive, well, as much as possible, yada, yada, ...In other words, it alone deserves recognition as a viable theory because you can't talk about God doing it. That would be wrong cuz we say so.

 

[Zadok]

A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles.

The Simple Case: A Speciation Event
Suppose some species A was unchanged for 2,000,000 years. Then, across 200,000 years, they became smaller and acquired wider feet. After the change, we think of them as species B, and they remain unchanged for another 2,000,000 years. Then any fossil from that 200,000-year period of transition is a transitional fossil.

In this example, you would expect every transitional fossil to predate every fossil from species B. However, it is not true that the transitional fossils must be more recent than all species-A fossils. This is because the transition can happen to an isolated group of A's, instead of to all A's. (In other words: the existence of a child doesn't mean the parent vanished.) In fact, there are examples where a parent species is alive to this day.

The transitional fossil is interesting because it tells us details of how the change happened. In this example, it could be that the creatures first became small, and then later got big feet. Or it could be the other way around. Or, the two trends could have been simultaneous: the features could have co-evolved. A nice transitional fossil tells which of these three possibilities is the one that actually happened.

 

[LouisBooth]

so if I can prove one of those isn't decented from the aniimal you advocate we can give up this silly idea of evolution?

 

[randman]

"In short, Louis ( and Randman), you can be skeptical to the point of nihilism."

Now, this is funny. We simply ask you back up and prove your assertions. Yet, you or at least many like you on these boards reject millions of people's personal testimony of their experience with God.

Who is being overly skeptical here?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by randman
Luis, you miss the point. That would make it "intermediary." By transitional, heck, that's all of the fossils because let me give you an analogy. Analogies by the way are great pieces of evidence because we say so. We go on a trip and take pictures of mileposts, now see, according to this analogy just because we don't have pictures of every milepost doesn't mean we didn't take the trip.
See, it all makes sense.


NOT!

So... You think that, any time anyone doesn't have a picture of every single milepost, and an eyewitness in every town between two places, it's reasonable to doubt that he went from one place to another?

Wow!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"In short, Louis ( and Randman), you can be skeptical to the point of nihilism."

Now, this is funny. We simply ask you back up and prove your assertions. Yet, you or at least many like you on these boards reject millions of people's personal testimony of their experience with God.

Who is being overly skeptical here?

As has already been explained to you, Randman, common descent causes us to expect SOME fossil specimens that appear in a sequence a - b - c, where a is the oldest, c is the newest, b is newer than a, and b shares many of its anatomical features with a and many of its anatomical features with c. Common descent predicts this. It is found, in (for instance) Archaeopteryx. THAT is what is meant by transitional forms, and why transitional forms are good evidence for common descent.

Common descent predicts transitional forms of this kind because it says (among other branches and diversions) that any existing species did evolve step-wise, species by species, from some already existing species of organism. The stochacity of preservation in the fossil record gives us no hope of ever determining a single and complete line of true intermediaries, so we DO NOT expect to see the kind of series you are talking about. You are asking for proof that a particular species is INTERMEDIARY (not merely transitional), and that cannot be done. Nevertheless the evidence from transitional fossils (and busloads and reams and scads of other kinds of evidence) still strongly supports common descent by evolution.

and....

I will try a different approach. Instead of showing you how Archaeopteryx supports common descent, I will tell you why it doesn't support creationism.

Creationism does not predict the existence of an organism like Archaeopteryx. Before it was found, no one, based on a creationist model, would ever predict that there would be a flying dinosaur with bird features, or a bird with a therapod tail, head, teeth, etc.

Creationism makes no prediction about what part of the geological column a creature like Archaeopteryx would be found in.

Common descent predicts that there MUST have been creatures like Archaeopteryx. Common descent predicts that they must follow the dinosuars in the geological column.

When Archaeopteryx is found, then, that is 2 points for common descent, zero for special creation.

Common descent does not predict how frequently we will be able to unearth creatures like Archaeopteryx will be found, or whether its immediate ancestors and descendents will be unearthed. It says that its immediate ancestors MUST have existed (the law of biogenesis says this too), but it does not say whether they will be turned up. The fact that they are not recovered does nothing to discredit evolution.

Furthermore, Archaeopteryx is the closing pitcher in a game that evolution has already won. The OTHER evidence (fossil, biogeographic, morphological, etc...) had already confirmed evolution to a degree of confidence that discovery of Archaeopteryx wasn't even a surprise to many.

If you are interested in evolution, learn about it from the basics of biology on up to whatever level you care to take it to. Coming in at the end of the game and insulting the pitcher doesn't change the score.

 

[Zadok]

so if I can prove one of those isn't decented from the aniimal you advocate we can give up this silly idea of evolution?

Nope, sorry. You have stated a FALSE dichotomy. Disproving one does not disprove the other.

If you want "proof" turn to mathematics or logic!
Nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt.
Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more
and more data support (or fail to refute) a scientific hypothesis the
greater our confidence in it.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by randman
Oh, and gee, I can string together whole bunches of fossils and imagine they all evolved according to this little path I made up, and this, my friend, is proof positive.

So, you walk into a room, and there's a corpse with a fresh gunshot wound, still warm, and there's a guy running away holding a gun short one bullet, and you figure maybe the guy just got a surprisingly misplaced stigmata brought on by the stress of having a gun fired near him?

There's such a thing as a "reasonable explanation". Generally, one accepts them unless one has a *better* explanation - which explains the facts better.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
so if I can prove one of those isn't decented from the aniimal you advocate we can give up this silly idea of evolution?

If you could prove that animal A isn't descended from animal B than you've just disproven that animal A is descended from animal B. If you want to disprove all of evolutionary theory, you'll have to do a bit more work with more fossils, maybe some biochemistry, and some bio-geography. Sorry, but your much-used argumentum ad smilum just won't cut it.

 

[LouisBooth]

so then by you telling me (well Z) telling me this list means nothing then either. Thanks Sat.

 

[Zadok]

Now, this is funny. We simply ask you back up and prove your assertions. Yet, you or at least many like you on these boards reject millions of people's personal testimony of their experience with God.

Funny, all christians seem to have this funny little thing called "difference in theology". Example:

Christian A: Personal testimony, says faith in Jesus is necessary in salvation.

Christian B: Personal testimony, says works and baptism is needed for salvation.

Christian C: Personal testimony, says clergy intervention is needed with personal faith in jesus for salvation.

Christian D: Personal testimony, says works and faith in jesus is needed for salvation.

Muslim A: Contradicts christian views of salvation, says non Islam will burn in hell.

And this is the problem YOU must address. All claim a seperate true path, all can verify it upon their versions of holy scripture and all contradict each other with no proof whatsoever. Or rather, everything can be interpreted as proof of ones own god of all faiths throughout history.

 

[randman]

"So... You think that, any time anyone doesn't have a picture of every single milepost, and an eyewitness in every town between two places, it's reasonable to doubt that he went from one place to another? "

No, you haven't even proved they are pictures of sign-osts at all. Note how I ask you to simply sting together 4-5 species surrounding the most famous so-called transitional ever, and you come back with.
1. an analogy
2. Statements you can't "have a picture of every single sign-post."
I didn't ask for a full-orbed data, just any data that actually documents evolution, and you have none, not one instance of species evolving into a whole different kind of species in the fossil record.
You have no data to document evolution in the fossil record because the fossil record does not show evolution occuring.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

There's such a thing as a "reasonable explanation". Generally, one accepts them unless one has a *better* explanation - which explains the facts better.

Okay, here's a reasonable explanation for you.

Look over here. This is a chimp.

Look over there. That's a man.

The man's name is Joe Chimp, but there's no relation.

 

[Zadok]

You have no data to document evolution in the fossil record because the fossil record does not show evolution occuring.

The fossil record SHOWS GENETIC CHANGE OCCURING.

Lets use the horse as an example. And o' yes, cave paintings and fossil remains show OUR HUMAN ANSCESTORS HUNTING THE SMALL TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL OF THE HORSE.

Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]

Would you like me to list modern "observed" instances of one species becoming another?