The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Speedwell]

Lamarck type evolution covers a broad set of influences and come under the headings of Inclusive inheritance, develoment biology and plasticity in the EES. There is scientific evidence for these influences.

Since variations in DNA methylation pattern can be sensitive to the environmental conditions and may lead to heritable variations in gene expression, there is a potential for soft inheritance here, for Lamarckian inheritance.
http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/epigenetic-inheritance-evolution-interview-eva-jablonka/

Developmental plasticity, the capacity of a single genotype to give rise to different phenotypes, affects evolutionary dynamics by influencing the rate and direction of phenotypic change. It is based on regulatory changes in gene expression and gene products, which are partially controlled by epigenetic mechanisms. Plasticity involves not just epigenetic changes in somatic cells and tissues; it can also involve changes in germline cells. Germline epigenetic plasticity increases evolvability, the capacity to generate heritable, selectable, phenotypic variations, including variations that lead to novel functions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610712000818

I still don't get exactly what you are are arguing against. You can correct me if I"m wrong, but you give the impression that you think "evolutionists" are dogmatically maintaining that random variation and selection is the only mechanism at work in evolution and that these EES people are just as much outsiders working against it as creationists.

In fact they are themselves "evolutionists" working to extend our understanding of evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

This is all very very wrong and have no scientific support.

CF chatter. Broom sweep patrol.

But Stevevw information was not addressed in a logical, definitive, counter evidence discourse.

 

[Heissonear]

I still don't get exactly what you are are arguing against. You can correct me if I"m wrong, but you give the impression that you think "evolutionists" are dogmatically maintaining that random variation and selection is the only mechanism at work in evolution and that these EES people are just as much outsiders working against it as creationists.

In fact they are themselves "evolutionists" working to extend our understanding of evolution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no non-conjecture evidence for evolution.

Start with the very foundational proof required for evolution: the fossil record.

There is not a single instance of a sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of creatures occurred.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no non-conjecture evidence for evolution.

Start with the very foundational proof required for evolution: the fossil record.

There is not a single instance of a sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of creatures occurred.

Why do you always lie about the fossil record?

 

[Heissonear]

Why do you always lie about the fossil record?

Reply to the post. Present the sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. All the fossil details. Not conjecture-based assuptions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Reply to the post. Present the sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. All the fossil details. Not conjecture-based assuptions.

It's pointless because it has been shown to you time and time and time and time again, and yet you just blithely ignore it, say that it doesn't exist, and then just go on and repeat the same lie again.

 

[tyke]

Why do you always lie about the fossil record?

He has to - he has no other alternative.

 

[AV1611VET]

He has to - he has no other alternative.

The fossil record, if photographed in chronological order and made into an fps book, would show instant creation, not evolution.

 

[Kylie]

That’s because Natural selection has no power to create new traits. I am not sure what you mean. If you mean there are other forces besides random mutations that produce variations this is a well-known fact.

I thought it was quite clear that I was referring to how natural selection can spread traits from random mutations throughout an entire population.

I have already done this several times now. I just gave you an example in the last post regarding development plasticity. A plant can change form when placed in a different environment without any gene changes. The environment such as the soil composition its nutrients and the surrounding organisms all contribute to helping the plant fit into its new environment. This is a well suited and integrated change. Therefore, natural selection plays a minor part because the changes have already been determined as a good fit before selection gets the chance to do anything. Selection is more about weeding out the weak and sick lifeforms so if the changes are already well suited and integrated then there's no need for selection. If you want to know more then read the paper.

What plant? What was the different environment? How did it change? Show me a source that tells me these SPECIFIC details. You do know what SPECIFIC means, don't you?

I have also given the example of how development bias can produce certain phenotypic variation over others such as the number of limbs in land-dwelling complex creatures being 4 as opposed to 5 or 6 or 8 regardless of the environmental pressures or species. If evolution is open to any possibility, then why not 6 legs so creatures can run faster and get away from prey. Why not several eyes or eyes in the back of the head to be able to see predators more easily. Why are there certain forms repeated over and over again rather than any other forms regardless of environment and the individual circumstances of the different creatures?

You gave examples? Okay. What organism did you mention in your example? And what specific phenotypic variation did you mention? You don't seem to know what the word SPECIFIC means.

As for your other questions, it is likely that there is some cost associated with such variations which outweigh the benefit gained. Sure, a six limbed animal might be able to run faster, but it will have the cost of added weight of two extra limbs, extra fuel requirements to power the muscles, added costs in developing those limbs... If the speed benefit it gains is only a little bit then the organism is going to be at a disadvantage overall, isn't it?

The standard theory says these similar forms are the result of a massive coincident from convergent evolution. But evidence shows it is more because of the development process being biased to produce certain forms. The example is given by the paper

For example, cichlid fishes from Lakes Malawi and Tanganyika exhibit striking similarities in body shape, despite being more closely related to species from their own lake than to those from the other lake [17,33]. Such repeated parallel evolution is generally attributed to convergent selection. However, inherent features of development may have channelled morphology along specific pathways, thereby facilitating the evolution of parallel forms in the two lakes [17,33]. If so, then the diversity of organismal form is only partly a consequence of natural selection—the particular evolutionary trajectories taken also depend on features of development.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

So it is not a case of mutations throwing up any possible variation and selection weeding out the bad and finding the best in a blind process like the watch maker Dawkins describes but that the development process drives change and throws up only certain forms which selection may then refine. Primarily the variation has already been decided before natural selection comes into the picture.

Funny, I always thought that the reason why tetrapods had four limbs was because we all evolved from a common ancestor with four limbs. Want to tell me why that is wrong?

Here are some examples for niche construction
‘Niche construction’ refers to the process whereby the metabolism, activities and choices of organisms modify or stabilize environmental states, and thereby affect selection acting on themselves and other species [71–73]. For example, many species of animals manufacture nests, burrows, webs and pupal cases; algae and plants change atmospheric redox states and modify nutrient cycles; fungi and bacteria decompose organic matter and may fix nutrients and excrete compounds that alter environments. Niche construction frequently scales up, across individuals in a population, and over time, to generate stable and directional changes in environmental conditions [73,74].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

So creatures can alter their environments and those changed environments alter creatures including those around them and visa versa. Therefore entire ecosystems change as well. If creatures can change environments so that they are well suited and accommodating for them then why would they need natural selection as much. Living things change the environment rather than having to be adapted to the environment through selection and random mutations.

Did you even read my reply to you from when you mentioned this earlier...? Because you have not addressed it at all.

The fact that an organism can have an effect on the environment does not mean that the organism was TRYING to have that effect. Bacteria may change the composition of the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean that they WANT the atmosphere so altered. The change comes simply as a by product of what they were doing to survive.

I haven't made any personal claims but have repeated what the scientific articles have said.

What you THINK they have said, I suspect.

If you want further info on this then you will have to read the papers. They clearly state that natural selection is only one influence on evolution and there are many other influences of variation and, in some cases, natural selection is not needed at all. IE,

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

As for the difference between the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the Standard Evolution Theory (Modern Synthesis)

The Modern Synthesis
adaptive variants are propagated through selection
The EES
In addition to selection, adaptive variants are propagated through repeated environmental induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning and cultural transmission
The Modern Synthesis
rapid phenotypic evolution requires strong selection on abundant genetic variation
The EES

rapid phenotypic evolution can be frequent and can result from the simultaneous induction and selection of functional variants

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].

It can be summed up by the following statement

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

Here's a question for you.

To show that you actually understand what you are talking about, explain it in simple terms, without any of this "rapid phenotypic evolution", and "simultaneous induction and selection of functional variants" stuff.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The fossil record, if photographed in chronological order and made into an fps book, would show instant creation, not evolution.

Wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I still don't get exactly what you are are arguing against. You can correct me if I"m wrong, but you give the impression that you think "evolutionists" are dogmatically maintaining that random variation and selection is the only mechanism at work in evolution and that these EES people are just as much outsiders working against it as creationists.

In fact they are themselves "evolutionists" working to extend our understanding of evolution.

From my experience there seem to be a lot who support the standard theory who resist and even object to anything mentioned about the processes aassociated with the EES. There is an ongoing debate as to what the EES represents. Traditionalist who take a more genecentric and adaptive view of evolution see processes mentioned in the EES like development bias, non-genetic inheritance, niche construction and plasticity as just proximate and minor influences but not causes of evolution. But there are many that say theses influences are causes of evolution with some saying the standard theory needs to be extended and a growing number saying it represents a total shift and reinterpretation of evolution even to the extent of it representing a new paradigm.

From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes [90]. Hence, the EES entails not only new research directions but also new ways to think about, and interpret, new and familiar problems in evolutionary biology.

Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that the EES is more than simply an extension of ‘business as usual’ science: it requires conceptual change [15]. The additional evolutionary processes that the EES highlights are more than just non-essential ‘add-ons’ [10] and may be as important in shaping evolution as those recognized within the field over the past century.

http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/

Those who support the EES support evolution and this has nothing to do with a religious verses evolution debate. Everything mentioned is backed by science and the differences in view about evolution would be the same debates that go on in other fields of science where new research and discoveries bring to light new evidence and therefore adjustments or re-evaluations of existing theories. From my point of view I agree with this and it is only my personal view that the EES can also support design in nature. My primary interest is to take a open view supported by the science. In the end the science will support any belief of there being a creator God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thats a non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow that if someone disputes evolution it is becuase of their religious belief.

Can you give me a single example of someone who disputes evolution, who isn't a theistic creationist of sorts?

In my experience, virtually all opposition to evolution theory as a whole, is religiously motivated.

Besides I have told you that it does not matter what the version of evolution is, it will not make any difference to my faith in God. I do not know how exactly God was injected into how life was created as to whether He did this through a single organism and evolution or through several original creatures created and all life was evolved from this. The important thing for me is that God was involved in some way, shape or form and that life from non-life is not possible.

Emphasis mine. This is very telling.
You're basically flat out saying that that is what you are going to believe simply because you want to believe it. It is "important" to you that this is true.

In other words, you are pretending to have the answers before asking the questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetic evidence showed E. Coli remained E. Coli.

And that they evolved novel genetics associated with novel traits.
No version of evolution says that e. coli would become non-e. coli.

That's just that strawman in your head.

Did you have specific genetic evidence you wished to discuss or just throwing out propaganda?

Thousands of shared ERV's between humans and chimps.
And a couple million other such examples.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But a single mutation won’t change gills into lungs.

Nobody claims that to be the case.

It would take thousands over millions of years.

Not even then. Gills didn't turn into lungs.

So despite what you said you want us to believe that useless mutations are kept until they can all add up together to create a lung.

More then that: these mutations never occured... since gills didn't turn into lungs.

Why if I didn’t know better I would think you were implying intelligence working behind the scene, keeping mutations that do nothing yet until one has a fully functional lung from a gill.

If anything, it's quite clear that you indeed don't know better.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since land life developed from sea life, gills sure did turn into lungs, or did you forget that part of the story?

It's with statements like this that you expose how ignorant you are on the stuff you pretend to have enough expertise to tell the actual experts that you know better... and as a result, how nobody who's understanding is on par with high-school biology can take you seriously....

http://homolog.us/blogs/ncrna/2015/01/27/evolution-of-lungs/

lungs did not come from gills.
In fact they coexisted. And in quite some species still alive today, they STILL coexist.

Name one statistical advantage of gills turning into lungs that won’t detract from the usefulness of gills, but add to the eventual functionality of lungs? What are these improvements?

Lungs basically evolved from the swim bladder. That's basically an inflatable "bag" inside the fish's body. It can push oxygen in that it captures through its gills, allowing the fish to control its buoyancy.

See that's the thing about evolution that people like you don't seem to get.... organs, traits, body parts,... can change function through time.

A childish approach would suggest that "wings are for flying - so what use is half a wing?".
A more sophisticated mind then says "a pinguin has wings, but it does not fly".

Or is this where we just ignore the details and revert to imagination and because we want it to be that way?

No, it is where we, once again, have to correct your strawman, point out your ignorance and mistakes and then try to explain it to you.

Only to then notice a few posts later that you are once again repeating the same nonsense and mistakes, having learned nothing at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no non-conjecture evidence for evolution.

Start with the very foundational proof required for evolution: the fossil record.

There is not a single instance of a sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of creatures occurred.

Bearing false witness much?

 

[Speedwell]

From my experience there seem to be a lot who support the standard theory who resist and even object to anything mentioned about the processes aassociated with the EES.

Mostly they're just wary of Evangelicals trying to use things like EES as a "wedge" for their magic Bible-God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no non-conjecture evidence for evolution.

Start with the very foundational proof required for evolution: the fossil record.

-_- it's not required at all, it just is a part of the evidence that supports evolution. Genetics are a much stronger source of evidence at they are independent of fossils for the most part, aside from a few lucky finds such as those Neanderthal bones.

There is not a single instance of a sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

I could make a flip book with the fossils relevant to human evolution that existed within the past 5 million years. I'd do it if I had any artistic talent to speak of.

Zero fossil record evidence showing evolution of creatures occurred.

Even if this were true, we can observe living populations evolve quite easily. Just pick an organism that reproduces very quickly and has a short lifespan.

 

[Brightmoon]

( snip)

Lamarck type evolution covers a broad set of influences and come under the headings of Inclusive inheritance, develoment biology and plasticity in the EES. There is scientific evidence for these influences.

Since variations in DNA methylation pattern can be sensitive to the environmental conditions and may lead to heritable variations in gene expression, there is a potential for soft inheritance here, for Lamarckian inheritance.
http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/epigenetic-inheritance-evolution-interview-eva-jablonka/

Developmental plasticity, the capacity of a single genotype to give rise to different phenotypes, affects evolutionary dynamics by influencing the rate and direction of phenotypic change. It is based on regulatory changes in gene expression and gene products, which are partially controlled by epigenetic mechanisms. Plasticity involves not just epigenetic changes in somatic cells and tissues; it can also involve changes in germline cells. Germline epigenetic plasticity increases evolvability, the capacity to generate heritable, selectable, phenotypic variations, including variations that lead to novel functions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610712000818

epigenesis isn’t really Lamarckian . These abilities to adapt to different environments that can be passed to the next generation are already in the parent genome . It’s like a switch . If A happens then do B and if A doesn’t happen then do C

 

[stevevw]

Can you give me a single example of someone who disputes evolution, who isn't a theistic creationist of sorts?

There's plenty and I just gave a couple of examples previously with how mainstream scientists that support the EES disagree with the interpretation of Neo-Darwinism in how it makes natural selection and random mutations the main and often only force in evolution. So they dispute evolution as you see it. See it depends on what you mean by evolution as this is such a loose term. Many religious people believe in microevolution and not macro so technically they support evolution.

Today there are several different views about evolution, especially with recent discoveries. There is a growing number of people who do not support the traditionalist view ie (Modern Synthesis) and place more importance on other forces that influence change in living things. Considering the EES places emphasis on fundamentally different mechanisms that produce variation and minimize or bypass natural selection it is a new interpretation of evolution.

So there are plenty of people who dispute evolution who are not theistic creationists as you call it. There are also different versions of theistic evolution where some support evolution but not creationism in the same way theistic creationists believe. So I think you are being too narrow in your interpretation of what evolution is. And besides arguing from popularity and numbers is a logical fallacy.

In my experience, virtually all opposition to evolution theory as a whole, is religiously motivated.

Once again you are taking a black and white view of what evolution is. As stated above there are non-religious people including scientists who disagree with the Neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis) interpretation of evolution.

Emphasis mine. This is very telling.
You're basically flat out saying that that is what you are going to believe simply because you want to believe it. It is "important" to you that this is true.

In other words, you are pretending to have the answers before asking the questions.

No this is your assumption because you stereotype Believers ie all believers must only disagree with evolution because of their religious belief. That discounts all theistic evolutionists, scientists and anyone else who have a religious faith. If all these people were honest they would say the same thing that though they may support evolution or disagree with it they also believe that a creator God was involved.

It is funny how some claim any opposition to evolution is only because of religious belief yet cite theistic evolutionists, the Pope and Catholic Church supporting evolution as evidence for evolution at the same time. That sort of exposes a hypocrisy as well.

We could also say that because you see evolution in such black and white terms and stereotype religious people that you can also be motivated by your own biased views on how you see things. Considering that Darwinian evolution is based on some non-verified science and major assumptions and that new discoveries are exposing those assumptions and how some supporters are sticking dogmatically to the traditionalist view we could also say that they too are only supporting evolution through their preconceived beliefs.