Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[USincognito]

Then put up or shut up.

This should be good.

It's going to be even better than you can imagine.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It mean I'm a geneticist, as I claimed. You do go on about stuff, don't you?

And yet here we go with the personal attacks instead of debating the science. If you are a geneticist, then you above all else should know that genetic has NEVER created anything new, simply turned genes on or off, or combined them from already existing lines of the same "kind."

You above all should know that a Tiger and a Lion are not two separate species, being they are quite capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. So do you or don't you???

You want to go personal, fine, otherwise let's keep it civil.

Attack all you want (civilly - like a scientist you claim to be) if you got real data to back it up, but in the end it all points only to variation within the same kind.

You have 50+ years of plant and animal husbandry research into mutations, when the cash flow was tremendous and "faith" strong. But it's basically been forgotten as the failed experiment it was, and the results thereof conveniently seems to have been forgotten as well.

It's going to be even better than you can imagine.

Indeed it is

You know how I am about Fairie Dust, no matter who is preaching it, or what subject it's being preached on. Fervently held beliefs, despite the data, always leads to Fairie Dust. And Fairie Dust can never be the justification for other fervent beliefs based on that very same Fairie Dust...

 

[Split Rock]

No, individual species has been observed, but never one species evolving into another species. Besides, with your mixed up definition of species which you violate left and right, go figure.

I guess you haven't seen this list yet...

Observed Speciation - Lucaspa

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

[Split Rock]

No, individual species has been observed, but never one species evolving into another species. Besides, with your mixed up definition of species which you violate left and right, go figure.

Oh and btw, according to the theory of evolution, populations are in flux, so species are fluid, not static.

 

[Split Rock]

And yet here we go with the personal attacks instead of debating the science. If you are a geneticist, then you above all else should know that genetic has NEVER created anything new, simply turned genes on or off, or combined them from already existing lines of the same "kind."

You above all should know that a Tiger and a Lion are not two separate species, being they are quite capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. So do you or don't you???

They are considered separate species because they do not interbreed in nature. So, do you agree that they evolved from a common ancestor?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then it's a good thing that creation scientists were there to straighten out the errors of those cosmologists and paleontologists.....oh, wait. You mean it wasn't evidence gleaned from the Bible that lead the scientific community abandon these previously held conclusions?

Who said anything about religion, but you?

We are discussing the data that says evolution is impossible. That it is merely variation of kind, to which the data is beginning to agree. As technology advances, the tree is becoming fragmented into individual bushes, unrelated through the genetic code.

Evolution is simply no longer a viable scientific theory, just another of those religious beliefs you you always bring up when the science comes out. I mean evolution's own theories best guess for the origin of life is electrical activity, to which I agree wholeheartedly!!! I simply disagree as to how it propagated afterwards, and still does. And to how many times destruction was caused by electrical events. Which of course would lead to new life, again.

I guess it boils down to what you consider creation to be, and what in reality infuses all things. Personally I think there is a scientific explanation, the same thing that makes this debate possible. Those currents of energy coursing through your brain that makes thought, consciousness, imagination and memory possible.

Those same currents that can create and destroy life. Those same currents we observe on every scale from the micro to the macro. Of course once you used it to create life from non-life, you then felt free to ignore it in any theory thereafter. Go figure.

So now we going to ignore 99% of biology like we do 99% of the universe???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They are considered separate species because they do not interbreed in nature. So, do you agree that they evolved from a common ancestor?

None of them are separate species. It's just like the dog and cat that you have right before your eyes. YOU consider two cats that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as separate species, not me. YOU think that two bacteria that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species, not me.

I understand YOU have a species problem, but don't try to double-talk your way out of it and sidestep the issue. Two cats that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are clearly of the same species, just as two any genera of bacteria, virus, bird, cat, dog, bear that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the same kind. Don't try to pass your species problems off on me. Fairie Dust is not king.

 

[USincognito]

And yet here we go with the personal attacks instead of debating the science. If you are a geneticist, then you above all else should know that genetic has NEVER created anything new, simply turned genes on or off, or combined them from already existing lines of the same "kind."

He doesn't know that because it's not true. Made up claims by Creationists are not reality nor reflective of it.

You above all should know that a Tiger and a Lion are not two separate species, being they are quite capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. So do you or don't you???

Maybe you should learn a little something about speciation. Interfertility can be maintained even when speciation has occured. Look at ring species.
Discovering a ring species

You want to go personal, fine, otherwise let's keep it civil.

What are you talking about? sfs was challenged on his CV. He provided a Google scholar link showing he's got 4 papers with more citations than you have posts - and you challenged him by asking "what did it mean".

Attack all you want (civilly - like a scientist you claim to be) if you got real data to back it up, but in the end it all points only to variation within the same kind.

If that's your set in stone conclusion, why even bother asking for data?

You have 50+ years of plant and animal husbandry research into mutations, when the cash flow was tremendous and "faith" strong. But it's basically been forgotten as the failed experiment it was, and the results thereof conveniently seems to have been forgotten as well.

Please stop spamming that paper. It doesn't cover what you think it covers nor arrives at the conclusions you think it does. That paper deals with "mutation breeding", where plants are exposed to mutation causing agents in order to try and stimulate mutations of new characteristics that breeders would find desirable.
Mutation breeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sfs]

And yet here we go with the personal attacks instead of debating the science.

What personal attack? As for the science, I debate science all the time. No, I'm not going to debate science with you, because I've tried. You simply ignore everything anyone knowledgeable says and state falsehoods as if they were true. For example:

If you are a geneticist, then you above all else should know that genetic has NEVER created anything new, simply turned genes on or off, or combined them from already existing lines of the same "kind."

The first part of your sentence is simply false. Mutation has indeed created new things, things observed in the lab. The second part is meaningless, since there's no such thing as "kind" in genetics.

You above all should know that a Tiger and a Lion are not two separate species, being they are quite capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. So do you or don't you???

Why are you, who don't know genetics, telling me what I must know as a geneticist? As it happens, you're wrong again. Tigers and lions are not the same species. They are formally classified as two species, so taxonomically they're two. Evolutionarily they're two species as well, since there is (and can be) no gene flow between them. Don't try to force scientists to use your simplistic notion of species.

You know how I am about Fairie Dust, no matter who is preaching it, or what subject it's being preached on. Fervently held beliefs, despite the data, always leads to Fairie Dust. And Fairie Dust can never be the justification for other fervent beliefs based on that very same Fairie Dust...

But you never know enough about any of these subjects to be able to tell what's fairy dust and what isn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He doesn't know that because it's not true. Made up claims by Creationists are not reality nor reflective of it.



Maybe you should learn a little something about speciation. Interfertility can be maintained even when speciation has occured. Look at ring species.
Discovering a ring species

Non-interbreeding is not a necessity of dividing the species. Let's look at cats, which evolutionists always ignore.

Their is a clear interbreeding chain all the way from house cat to Tiger, even though some do not or can no longer breed with another of it's same kind.

This is what happens in mutation, where genes are turned on or off. But Felidae are still Felidae, and Canidae are still Canidae. As they always have been and always will be, even if there are many classifications or "breeds" within that kind.

That you have mutated new "breeds" of bacteria, I have no doubt. That you have never created a new one, but only from turning pre-existing genes on or off, or combining other "breeds" together, I have no doubt either.

That you would turn all those different dog and cat breeds into different species if people would let you get away with it, I have no doubt either. You have already started with the Tiger and Lion, even when that classification was made upon the belief they could not produce fertile offspring. An incorrect classification falsified by those very fertile offspring, that you still won't change.

So no, I have no doubt you won't give up on that Fairie Dust easily.

 

[USincognito]

I understand YOU have a species problem, but don't try to double-talk your way out of it and sidestep the issue. Two cats that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are clearly of the same species, just as two any genera of bacteria, virus, bird, cat, dog, bear that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the same kind. Don't try to pass your species problems off on me. Fairie Dust is not king.

Geographic isolation produces speciation even if it is not complete at a given point of observation (meaning now). Both Panthera Leo and Panthera Tigris have numerous extant and extinct subspecies.

 

[USincognito]

Non-interbreeding is not a necessity of dividing the species. Let's look at cats, which evolutionists always ignore.

At this point people can stop reading your post.

A check of Google Scholar shows ~45,000 hits for Felidae and ~36,000 hits for Panthera.

 

[Split Rock]

None of them are separate species. It's just like the dog and cat that you have right before your eyes. YOU consider two cats that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as separate species, not me. YOU think that two bacteria that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species, not me.

It is significant because they constitute separate breeding pools.

I understand YOU have a species problem, but don't try to double-talk your way out of it and sidestep the issue. Two cats that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are clearly of the same species, just as two any genera of bacteria, virus, bird, cat, dog, bear that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the same kind. Don't try to pass your species problems off on me. Fairie Dust is not king.

What "species problem?" We understand that species are not set in stone... that idea is a creationist one. We understand common descent. Fixity of created species is a creationist assertion.

One more time since you ignored the question I asked:
Do you agree that lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor?
Yes or no, please. It isn't a hard question.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Okay. This is me. For some context on the meaning of those citation numbers, you can also look me up by name here. If you want to confirm that that's really me, my email address is my user name here (sfs) + @broadinstitute.org. Email me.

(Like lambs to the slaughter. . . Sometimes I'm not very nice.)

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

 

[lifepsyop]

Geographic isolation produces speciation even if it is not complete at a given point of observation (meaning now). Both Panthera Leo and Panthera Tigris have numerous extant and extinct subspecies.

This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"

Simple geographic isolation of populations obviously does not necessarily drive Evolution.

Interestingly, in the evolutionary paradigm, jaguars and leopards (two other "Pantheras") have been separated for over a million years, yet can still produce offspring. Similar scenarios can be found in other animals. Strange that reproductive isolation is supposed to stimulate evolutionary change yet appears to be totally ineffective. Of course, as in all cases, evolutionists will defer to the non-explanation of "natural selection did it".

Even reproductive isolation is not necessarily any driver for Evolution. Why do evolutionists completely misrepresent this process as if it somehow guarantees the origin of new types of animals?

Division of gene pools can just as easily be tending towards lack of genetic variation, genomic degradation and eventual extinction.

This is most certainly the actual long-term trajectory... instead of some mythical arrival of new types of life that evolutionists believe in.

But by getting you to equate the word 'speciation' with 'evolution', evolutionists will trick you into believing there are numerous examples of "observed evolution". They will present you with a wall of references, as Split_Rock did earlier, hoping you will swallow the false idea that you're rejecting a mountain of empirical data if you reject Evolution.

Equivocation games are the evolutionist's primary tactic. Learn to recognize them and they hardly have a leg left to stand on.

 

[biggles53]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.

The least you could do is hold your smug arrogance in check and issue an apology for your false accusations....

I'll just grow a beard here while I wait....

 

[Only Me]

This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"

Then perhaps you can explain why out of 12,000 different species of animal on the island of Madagascar 10,000 of them are found nowhere else on earth?

 

[DogmaHunter]

As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution,

Wauw. Just... Wauw.

First, you say this:

Then put up or shut up.

This should be good.

Sfs responds with quite impressive credentials....

And then you reply with "as if that means anything"....

Wauw. Just..... wauw.

You just exposed your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[lifepsyop]

What cryptic message? I offered to predict the transition/transversion ratio in the comparison of human and gorilla genomes. That's pretty unambiguous and baggage-free. Now, can you find a creationist who's willing to make a similar prediction or not?

I have no doubt you can predict many things in biology. The problem comes with decoding the actual basis on which you're making such predictions.

I think your ability to predict comes from what you've already observed in Biology... and you probably tend to mistake what you have observed as something that can only be explained by Evolution.

I've also seen evolutionary biologists claim that they are making evolutionary predictions when they 'predict' that the molecular traits of a mammal will be more similar to another mammal, instead of say... a spider.

They defend their reasoning for this by making teleological/metaphysical statements that if Evolution (Universal Common Descent) were false then we could expect such bizarre discrepancies.

So any time an evolutionist speaks of using the theory to make predictions it should be taken with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, when evolutionary predictions fail, or otherwise unexpected results appear, they can usually be accommodated with ad-hoc rescue devices. "natural selection did it", "mutation rates changed", "ancient splits different than previously thought", "convergent evolution", "incomplete lineage sorting", etc.

So usually when evolutionists tell you that their predictions succeeded, what they fail to mention is that even if their predictions failed, then they would simply adjust the theory to fit the failed prediction.... what's funny is that evolutionists would probably then make new predictions based off the failed ones... and ultimately claim any new successes as a victory for Evolution.

Here is one example I just came across of molecular data failing to align with fossil data under a prediction of evolution. This is no problem of course and the authors go on to retrofit a new ad-hoc rate-change molecular model, but not before throwing out another familiar rescue device "incomplete fossil record"

Evidence for a convergent slowdown in primate molecular rates and its implications for the timing of early primate evolution
A long-standing problem in primate evolution is the discord between paleontological and molecular clock estimates for the time of crown primate origins: the earliest crown primate fossils are ∼56 million y (Ma) old, whereas molecular estimates for the haplorhine-strepsirrhine split are often deep in the Late Cretaceous. One explanation for this phenomenon is that crown primates existed in the Cretaceous but that their fossil remains have not yet been found... Here we provide strong evidence that this discordance is better-explained by a convergent molecular rate slowdown in early primate evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then perhaps you can explain why out of 12,000 different species of animal on the island of Madagascar 10,000 of them are found nowhere else on earth?

Are you just asking to ask or were you going to present an argument?