The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Subduction Zone]

The experiments that they were working on didn't work, so the site didn't give any useful information.

What did you mean that they did not work? This is epic denial on your part, of course they worked. You obviously do not understand the goals of those experiments.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What did you mean that they did not work? This is epic denial on your part, of course they worked. You obviously do not understand the goals of those experiments.

They presented their program, then said it was out-of-date. I know what their goal is, but I don't understand the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They presented their program, then said it was out-of-date.

So? There is a lot of cutting edge research going on in this topic, almost anything that you see will be out of date.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not about beliefs. It's about how you interpret the evidence.

Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?

Again, you have the actual paleontologist in question saying that your interpretation is complete bunk. And if you knew anything about paleontology, you'd probably understand why statements like this were so dumb.

No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.

As Horner himself pointed out, not many - the issue is very specific. And Atheos basically gave you a layman's primer on how ontogeny works and how we go about assessing these things - which you apparently ignored completely. Should I email Horner again and ask him some clarifying questions? Do you even care about how these scientists came to these conclusions? Seriously, I'm kind of lost here - you obviously have no understanding of the subject, and when people show up who do, citing others who teach the subject, you don't seem to be interested in what they have to say. So I'm a bit confused on that count.

No, what Horner found that of the 12 main groups of North America alone - not counting minor groups or other continents, is that 2 of every 3 classified as a separate species were not. You choose to believe that the loss of 5 groups of dinosaur has no effect on any others. Yet you make this claim before even testing all the other groups. So what evidence we do have is that 2 of every 3 dinosaur studied in depth have been incorrectly classified.

I mean, I could spend a fair amount of time looking up the relevant peer-reviewed papers. I could email Dr. Horner again, waste more of his valuable time, and get some more answers. I could ask some other people I know who know some things about the subject. However, I'd like to have some sort of assurance that I'm not just talking to a brick wall.

Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?

Poorly worded. Fossils show a change in appearance that perfectly matches what is expected if one uses the theory of evolution. Creationists still have no explanation of the fossil record.

No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.

He did not such thing. Your math is astonishingly bad. He reduces 12 to 7, and was shown to be wrong in the article that I linked on triceratops. That means at best he could go from 12 to 9. And what you hear are facts. All you have done is to fixated on a talk that is clearly beyond your understanding.

No, what Horner found that of the 12 main groups of North America alone - not counting minor groups or other continents, is that 2 of every 3 classified as a separate species were not. You choose to believe that the loss of 5 groups of dinosaur has no effect on any others. Yet you make this claim before even testing all the other groups. So what evidence we do have is that 2 of every 3 dinosaur studied in depth have been incorrectly classified.

Repeating your bad math does not help your case.

Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????

Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?



No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.



No, what Horner found that of the 12 main groups of North America alone - not counting minor groups or other continents, is that 2 of every 3 classified as a separate species were not. You choose to believe that the loss of 5 groups of dinosaur has no effect on any others. Yet you make this claim before even testing all the other groups. So what evidence we do have is that 2 of every 3 dinosaur studied in depth have been incorrectly classified.



Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????

Once more it looks like all that you have is unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[lasthero]

Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????

If only there was a tool that you could use to find such things. A program that scans the internet and brings back relevant pages. A 'search engine', if you will.

But alas, such things are mere fantasy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jack+Horner's+email

 

[The Cadet]

Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?

"Every fossil found is the same"? But we have lineages like this:

Or do you mean that every skeleton we find of a species is the same? Well, yeah - we have very limited dinosaur finds, and we classify those based on morphology. If there were any significant differences, we would most likely classify them as a different species. And, in fact, we do have a whole family of tyrannids; dinosaurs which seem to share a lineage with Tyrannosaurus Rex but clearly cannot be simply different breeds due to the dates in which they were found. The ones I linked to earlier. What are you even talking about?

(For what it's worth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-Rex_skeleton_"Big_Mike"_at_Museum_of_the_Rockies.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sues_skeleton.jpg
Seem to show significant differences in the bone structure of the legs and feet. That said, I'm having trouble finding good comparative pictures of various T. Rex skeletons, so I don't really have a great answer with regards to them.)

No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.

This is now the third time I have asked you to list which ones were incorrectly classified, because neither I nor Subduction Zone counted 8. That said, reviewing the transcript, I will admit that I was wrong, I missed the Edmontosaurus. So it's 5/12 instead of 4/12 that were incorrectly classified. However, here's the relevant piece of the transcript for you:

So when it comes down to our end cretaceous, we have seven left. And that's a good number. That's a good number to go extinct, I think. Now as you can imagine, this is not very popular with fourth-graders. Fourth-graders love their dinosaurs, they memorize them. And they're not happy with this.​

Rather than your 4 left if it was 2/3rds. But here's the thing. Comparative ontogeny is essentially its own field within paleontology. People have been studying how to delineate young dinosaurs from entirely different species for quite a long time. Check this out:

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=ontogeny+of+dinosaurs&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Very first result on my end was a paper from 1997 examining the ontogeny of Centrosaurinae. 1997! That's almost two decades ago. This is not some new, foreign problem to scientists, and before you pretend that these new developments throw evolution on its head, I recommend you do some reading and see what, say, they know about synapsidae.

Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????

http://www.montana.edu/earthsciences/facstaff/horner.html

Like with most university professors, this sort of thing is pretty easy to find online.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Or do you mean that every skeleton we find of a species is the same? Well, yeah - we have very limited dinosaur finds, and we classify those based on morphology.

And yet I was still able to find a recent paper by Horner that describes an anagenic speciation event for Triceratops which he and his co-author were able to identify by the gradation of morphologies that between T. horridus at the base of the Hell Creek Formation and T. prorsus at the top.

And, in fact, we do have a whole family of tyrannids

You mean tyrannosaurids. This is a tyrannid:

Rather than your 4 left if it was 2/3rds. But here's the thing. Comparative ontogeny is essentially its own field within paleontology. People have been studying how to delineate young dinosaurs from entirely different species for quite a long time. Check this out:

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=ontogeny+of+dinosaurs&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Very first result on my end was a paper from 1997 examining the ontogeny of Centrosaurinae. 1997! That's almost two decades ago. This is not some new, foreign problem to scientists, and before you pretend that these new developments throw evolution on its head, I recommend you do some reading and see what, say, they know about synapsidae.

Indeed. It is really easy to find this stuff if one isn't too busy crowing about how the foolish evolutionists never saw this problem coming.

 

[The Cadet]

You mean tyrannosaurids. This is a tyrannid:

See, here's the difference between you and me: you actually know what you're talking about. By the way, is there any resource like Medline for paleontology or Evo-devo, or do you just use Google Scholar?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits.

This is simply not true.

Even within species, these branches exist.
It's called a family tree.

It's how we can tell your biological parents from non-biological ones.

Now of course most of these would go extinct, but isn't it amazing that between all of extant life and even the most plentiful 95+ % of the fossil record of marine invertebrates, life always and only can be detected by highly distinct types

I'ld say that it's not as distinct as you make it out to be.

I would expect to see lots of different species. Some of them very alike, some a bit alike, others not alike at all - yet still with some kind link, connecting all species.

And, off course, I'ld expect the anatomy to make sense in context of its age and location.

Never any evidence of this trait gradation and blending that you predict would be happening constantly over geologic time.

Really now?

You seem to be unaware that museums around the world are filled with hundreds of thousands of such fossils.

Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable.

I notice that you didn't give any examples.
You just repeated your assertion, which is still left unsupported.

Show me a nested hierarchy in any productline.
I submit that you can't give any such example.
Consider yourself challenged.

 

[The Cadet]

But as with most things, Evolution resists falsification by simply accommodating failed predictions. We only see evidence of distinctiveness because no evidence to the contrary happened to be left over from the mystical Darwin fairies handiwork, of course.

Well... Duh? Any overarching scientific theory, when faced with contradictory evidence, will need to be adapted to this evidence. I'm not sure why you say this as though it was a bad thing.

Think of evolution as a model. As a way we map out reality and prehistory. If one small part of that model is broken, does the whole thing need to be scrapped? Of course not. The specific elements, of course, have been falsified, but the core of the theory has faced no such challenge. And yes, there have been paradigm shifts. The shift from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium, for example, was kind of a big deal, but it better explained the evidence we had.

And of course, for any idea in evolution, there is a falsification criteria. Name a concept in evolution, and I'll see if I can find some hypothetical piece of evidence that would falsify it. For example, you could wreck a good 90% of the tree of life by finding a precambrian rabbit.

This is why the school of Cladistics was not anticipated and had to be invented later on in the game. Evolutionists were not expecting to be limited only to comparing similarities of distinct types in order for their conjuring up imagined common descent relationships.

Are you kidding me? The problem with the old classification methods are exactly the opposite. The problem is that the types are not distinct. That you have problems like ring species, morphologically different creatures with fertile offspring, and the gradient path of speciation, problems that do not fit into nice neat boxes like "Species", "Genus", or "Kind".

Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable.

Citation needed on that one. I'm not exactly sure how you'd build a nested hierarchy of, say, VW cars. How 'bout you try making one of those.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

See, here's the difference between you and me: you actually know what you're talking about. By the way is there any resource like Medline for paleontology or Evo-devo, or do you just use Google Scholar?

Heh, I am just a dinosaur nerd. Google Scholar is pretty good for finding things, I find. If you want access to more than just abstracts you can do an advanced search you and set it to only search for certain journals like Plos which is free.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Poorly worded. Fossils show a change in appearance that perfectly matches what is expected if one uses the theory of evolution. Creationists still have no explanation of the fossil record.

Show me any T-Rex that are not the same? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? I hear claims from you, but a decided lack of any fact.

He did not such thing. Your math is astonishingly bad. He reduces 12 to 7, and was shown to be wrong in the article that I linked on triceratops. That means at best he could go from 12 to 9. And what you hear are facts. All you have done is to fixated on a talk that is clearly beyond your understanding.

12 groups of dinosaurs to 7. And did so by removing two of every 3 except for Triceratops where he removed one. Get your fact straight. See timeline 17:50 on the timeline and go dispute with him if you like.

In his comedic attempt to not ruffle feathers.

T-Rex - Nanotyrannus extinct (1 of 1 your best odds 50% of being correct or incorrect)

Pachycephalosaurus - Stigimoloch and Drocorex extinct (2 of 3)

Triceratops - Torosourus extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)

Edmontosorus - Anatotitan extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)

Repeating your bad math does not help your case.

So we should just flip a coin to see how many others you got wrong, it's a 50/50 situation, with one being even worse.

Once more it looks like all that you have is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Once more you show you can't even count. 12 to 7 and even if he happens to be wrong - which is still hotly debated in the paleontology community means 12 to 8 not 7. Repeating your bad math does not help your case either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is simply not true.

Even within species, these branches exist.
It's called a family tree.

It's how we can tell your biological parents from non-biological ones.

And all the genetic evidence and observations point to those biological offspring always in each and every case - being the same species as the parent. So if evolutionists want to believe, they need to revamp their theory to at least partially fit what is observed. Is the chimpanzee type of creature that we are descended from - not a species? Then how would we arise as a separate species if after species as per observation and experiment - they merely divide into different subspecies, breeds, variations and formae? All would be merely infraspecific taxa - not species in their own right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

I'ld say that it's not as distinct as you make it out to be.

I would expect to see lots of different species. Some of them very alike, some a bit alike, others not alike at all - yet still with some kind link, connecting all species.

And, off course, I'ld expect the anatomy to make sense in context of its age and location.



Really now?

You seem to be unaware that museums around the world are filled with hundreds of thousands of such fossils.

Which means what exactly?

So you have in the fossil record completely ignored what we know occurs. We have direct evidence that the Chinook came from the English Mastiff and Husky.

I have no doubts at all if you had never seen a living dog you would confuse the different breeds as different species and as intermediaries.

I find it not surprising at all that the English Mastiff and Husky would be found further back in the record than the Chinook. And we could then all pretend that they morphed through evolution into the different creatures, instead of being what we know is true - different breeds and variations within that same species.

I notice that you didn't give any examples.
You just repeated your assertion, which is still left unsupported.

How many examples in the real world of everything born from a species just becomes infraspecific taxa and never another species? See the one above.

Were you not just the one that said: "It's called a family tree."

Are you now saying no evidence exists for that nested hierarchy and so family trees can be discarded?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Show me any T-Rex that are not the same? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? I hear claims from you, but a decided lack of any fact.
.

I just posted a paper that describes a sequence of transitional morphology in Triceratops fromT. horridus at the base of the Hell Creek Formation to T. prorsus at the top. What was that you were saying about there being no change?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I just posted a paper that describes a sequence of transitional morphology in Triceratops fromT. horridus at the base of the Hell Creek Formation to T. prorsus at the top. What was that you were saying about there being no change?

You mean you posted a paper that shows different breeds of the same exact species. It's what we observe today - so why would I postulate incorrectly something completely different in the past we have never once observed? Didn't you read my "real world example" - versus imagination - of the Chinook from the English Mastiff and Husky?

So the Husky stays a Husky. The English Mastiff stays an English Mastiff and the new breed the Chinook will stay a Chinook. When it is bred with a different breed (of the same species) - a new breed will come into existence in the "fossil record" - paper record - which will be claimed as proof of evolution in the fossil record - even if we all understand in the here and now - paper record - that is not how it is.

So T. Prorsus is in reality nothing but the Chinook.

EDIT: added (of the same species) for clarification.

Which is why T. Prorus is found suddenly in the fossil record. As are they all. Because they are merely different "breeds, variations, subspecies, formae" of the original Kind.

 

[The Cadet]

You mean you posted a paper that shows different breeds of the same exact species.

Excuse me, you don't see how phenomenally dishonest this is? First you say they're all the same, then when someone points out that they are not all the same, you claim "Yeah, but they're all different breeds of the same species". Ignoring for the moment that no, they aren't, and we know they aren't, and ignoring for the moment how persistently dishonest and unreasonable your examples based on dog breeds are (I'll get to this later), the fact is that you made a challenge, got an answer, and completely ignored it. I mean, what are you looking for? Two skeletons of the species Triceratops that are of clearly different species? That's absurd.

It's what we observe today - so why would I postulate incorrectly something completely different in the past we have never once observed? Didn't you read my "real world example" - versus imagination - of the Chinook from the English Mastiff and Husky?

Let's make something clear here. Comparing dog breeds to anything found in nature is simply not a good example.

Ironically, even Answers In Genesis has you beat when it comes to understanding the science behind dog breeding (although their conclusions are asinine). See, what happened with the various breeds of dog is that we isolated mutations within populations of dogs, and explicitly bred for those mutations. Two differences here compared to what we see in nature:

1. Selection pressure. Most of these mutations are the kind that would be quickly bred out of the population. As AiG rightly points out, the mutation involved in Pugs, Pekingese, Bulldogs, and the like all lead to a significant drop in fitness. If these dogs were out in the wild, these sorts of mutations would have been a death sentence, and they almost certainly would not have found a mate, let alone dozens...
2. Number of breeding partners. (I'm going off what a friend who breeds dogs told me quite a while back here; I could be somewhat off base, and if I am, someone please correct me.) In an attempt to further the lineage of that mutation, these dogs will be explicitly bred with as many partners as possible, then incestuously with any further members of the lineage that share similar traits. In nature, this does not happen. As previously stated, many of these mutations are explicitly harmful for the organism. In the wild, a dog with dwarfism would almost certainly not survive. A dog with short, stumpy legs, a dog who couldn't breathe well, a dog who couldn't hunt or eat or even chew their food well, would have trouble finding one mate, let alone many.

And of course, throughout this, most of the genetic material was unchanged. Breeds of dogs were changed by humans. They do not mirror almost anything in nature, let alone most of the fossil record, and using them as an example is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Excuse me, you don't see how phenomenally dishonest this is? First you say they're all the same, then when someone points out that they are not all the same, you claim "Yeah, but they're all different breeds of the same species". Ignoring for the moment that no, they aren't, and we know they aren't, and ignoring for the moment how persistently dishonest and unreasonable your examples based on dog breeds are (I'll get to this later), the fact is that you made a challenge, got an answer, and completely ignored it. I mean, what are you looking for? Two skeletons of the species Triceratops that are of clearly different species? That's absurd.

How am I being dishonest? Have you ever seen a Triceratops fossil that was not a Triceratops? Have you ever seen a Husky skeleton that was not a Husky? So then you want me to accept that when you find another dinosaur later in the fossil sequence, that it magically evolved instead of what we observe, is nothing more than a different breed of the same Kind?

This is what I am to accept as scientific? That the Husky and English Mastiff slowly morph over time into the Chinook? I am to ignore what is before my very eyes (those lying eyes I guess) and pretend it is other than what those lying eyes told me?????

Not a chance sir! Ain't gonna happen any more than the Husky is ever going to evolve into the Chinook.

Let's make something clear here. Comparing dog breeds to anything found in nature is simply not a good example.

So you want us to take nature and not compare it to nature?

Ironically, even Answers In Genesis has you beat when it comes to understanding the science behind dog breeding (although their conclusions are asinine). See, what happened with the various breeds of dog is that we isolated mutations within populations of dogs, and explicitly bred for those mutations. Two differences here compared to what we see in nature:

Exactly what we see in nature is one breed of deer always remaining that same breed of deer. Unless it mates with another breed of that Kind in which case another breed of deer comes into existence. So now you want me to believe that somehow that is different than with dogs?

And of course, throughout this, most of the genetic material was unchanged. Breeds of dogs were changed by humans. They do not mirror almost anything in nature, let alone most of the fossil record, and using them as an example is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

No trying to say dogs are different than the way we see deer or any life happening around us is misleading and dishonest.

Show me any change in any species living now that shows change over time until it is paired with another breed of that same Kind? You can't. All you see before your eyes in every animal ever mated with another is the same exact deer - until it breeds with another deer of a different breed of that same Kind. Don't try to mislead people into thinking it is any different at all!

Chinese man (breed) would stay Chinese until they mated with a Caucasian (breed) or any other. You see nothing but minor variation within the breed until it pairs with another breed of that same Kind.

And I contest vigorously that those fossils show anything else but what we know to occur in the here and now. Your T. Prosorus is nothing but a new breed within the horned dinosaur Kind.

 

[The Cadet]

How am I being dishonest? Have you ever seen a Triceratops fossil that was not a Triceratops?

The dishonest part is demanding something, then rejecting the answer unless it fulfills other, directly contradictory requirements. Every triceratops fossil was a triceratops. Congratulations, you have just described a tautology.

So then you want me to accept that when you find another dinosaur later in the fossil sequence, that it magically evolved instead of what we observe, is nothing more than a different breed of the same Kind?

This is neither a coherent thought nor a coherent sentence. Try again. And there is nothing magical about a population evolving.

So you want us to take nature and not compare it to nature?

How is selective dog breeding "nature"? It's a heavily controlled process with an explicit goal carried out by intelligent creatures. This is why these differences are so extreme! That's why the comparison is so flawed! And even if this was nature, you're picking an extreme outlier that bears little resemblance to anything else in nature, and trying to generalize the fossil record based on that. I'm sorry, but that's just downright unreasonable.

Show me any change in any species living now that shows change over time until it is paired with another breed of that same Kind? You can't.

Are you serious?

http://cf.mp-cdn.net/73/07/1bdd1a0c...sr-a-better-president-than-george-bush-jr.jpg
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/wennpic/wenn5033699.jpg
https://www.google.de/search?q=fath...ow=1&tbm=isch&q=father+and+son+adult+pictures

Change over time is a constant. In every generation, genes get reshuffled with slight modifications.

Or how about dogs? Yes, dogs? Where do you think the breeds came from originally? Before these mutations were selected for, there wasn't a pug breed, or a pekingese breed to interbreed with. Those were mutations - that "change over time".

Chinese man (breed) would stay Chinese until they mated with a Caucasian (breed) or any other. You see nothing but minor variation within the breed until it pairs with another breed of that same Kind.

Yes, and this "minor variation", given population isolation, adds up. We can see this in the genetic code - we can identify specific points where mutations happened that helped differentiate humans from Chimpanzees. Which is it, by the way - that they're exactly the same, or that there are minor variations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me any T-Rex that are not the same? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? I hear claims from you, but a decided lack of any fact.

There are many T-Rex relatives. One was just found in my state:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/20/us-usa-dinosaur-washington-idUSKBN0O52TM20150520

Of the T-Rex themselves that is a species, the number found is rather small. I need far less than the fingers of two hands to count them.

12 groups of dinosaurs to 7. And did so by removing two of every 3 except for Triceratops where he removed one. Get your fact straight. See timeline 17:50 on the timeline and go dispute with him if you like.

Your math is still atrocious. If he removed 2 of 3 that would have left 4. And he was wrong on Triceratops. I have not checked the others. Also there are many many many more dinosaur species than just those 12 or 7 or whatever you want to call it.

In his comedic attempt to not ruffle feathers.

T-Rex - Nanotyrannus extinct (1 of 1 your best odds 50% of being correct or incorrect)

Pachycephalosaurus - Stigimoloch and Drocorex extinct (2 of 3)

Triceratops - Torosourus extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)

Edmontosorus - Anatotitan extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)

The problem is that he is assuming that the supposed adults and the supposed young are the same species. That was a huge error on his part. At best he has shown that some of those dinosaurs were young. He did not eliminate species. You are grasping at straws again and ignoring the fact that dinosaurs can only be explained by the theory of evolution.

So we should just flip a coin to see how many others you got wrong, it's a 50/50 situation, with one being even worse.

But we know that is not the case. And even if it is you still have the problem that dinosaurs can only be explained by the theory of evolution.

Once more you show you can't even count. 12 to 7 and even if he happens to be wrong - which is still hotly debated in the paleontology community means 12 to 8 not 7. Repeating your bad math does not help your case either.

That was the only example that I even bothered to check out. By your method of reasoning that means all 12 are still species. Your math and logic are terribly wrong here. And once again you have ignored the fact that this argument of yours is a red herring at best. Creationists still have no explanation for the fossil record. That can only be explained the theory of evolution.