Why evolution doesn't work.

[ChaseNelson]

Sorry this was not meant to be posted (edit)

 

[ChaseNelson]

Chickenman,

A cell maintains homeostasis between it and its environment through diffusion with active and passive transport. We're not talking about proteins inside and produced by functioning cells--we're talking about little oligopeptides and forming polypeptides in the ocean. They're all by themselves, not protected by anything. You also ignored the law of mass action.

Also, as I stated, a folded protein can undergo denaturation in changed salt concentrations, pH level, or increased temperature--denaturation is the loss of normal tertiary structure. A protein is made of a primary, secondary, tertiary, and sometimes quarternary structure (if tertiary structures get together). The primary structure is simply the amino acid sequence. Since how the protein will fold is basically predestined by this sequence, a new field of computational biochemistry seeks to predict the shape of a protein simply using the primary structure.

The secondary structure consists of things called beta pleated sheets and alpha helices. Basically, for the alpha helix, a bunch of hydrogen bonds form, causing the amino acids to take the shape of a spring. A beta pleated sheet looks kind of like paper after you've folded it a number of times--sort of like when you fold a piece of paper over and over again to make a little fan.

Tertiary structure in the bigger structure consisting of a bunch of secondary structures, among other things like disulfide bridges, etc. If these structures combine, they're still called proteins--just bigger. For example, hemoglobin consists of four tertiary structures.

-Chase

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson I don't believe that philosophical naturalism is the same thing as atheism, although I could be wrong on that point. However, what I'm suggesting is that perhaps we all interpret scientific evidence on the basis of our philosophy--so perhaps this is a philosophical question.

Philosophical naturalism holds that there are no supernatural causes or entities.  That's pretty much atheism, isn't it?

As to interpreting scientific evidence based on our philosophies, that doesn't work.  There are too many scientists with different philosophies that all accept evolution.  Also, remember that creationism was the scientific theory prior to 1831.  The people who falsified it were all theists or deists. Now, if evidence is only interpreted by your philosophy, then creationism couldn't have been falsified in the first place.  It's the data. It's always the data.

 I would interpret one thing as being a significant blow to evolution, while you might interpret that same thing to mean that evolution is, after all, possible[/i].

This depends on the claims.  Remember, most of the claims of creationists are that evolution can't possibly account for such-and-such.  When that claim is made, then it is not necessary to show it actually happened that way, but only that it was possible.  Irreducible complexity is a perfect example of that type of argument and response.

About Darwin; what one man believes does not shape truth. I believe that theism (at least biblical) and evolution are quite contradicting.

A literal interpretation of the Bible and evolution are quite contradicting.  However, even Biblical theism is not only literalism.  What the Darwin quotes showed was that Darwin did not believe that evolution falsified a deity or eliminated the necessity of one.

So what do you believe? Will you invoke a god of the gaps?

All the data I have seen is that Fox's protocells are alive. Therefore, the secondary causes of chemistry will yield life just like the secondary cause of gravity keeps the planets in orbit.   

I'm not questioning right now if evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet--I'm asking if it can naturalistically explain the first crucial step of abiogenesis without invoking a god. ... And, I'm not putting God into any gaps.

Right here is your god-of-the-gaps.  If there are no known at present chemical processes that yield life, then you invoke god.  That is exactly what god-of-the-gaps is.  So what happens when a material (naturalistic) cause is found? No god.  Chase, what you are unconsciously doing here is accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.  Even if there is a naturalistic mechanism, is God absent?

It was not my plea that I be treated as a 13 year (it's 14) old.

No, it was the plea of another poster that I go easy on you because of your youth.

And I do believe that both debates are interwoven. Creation 'science' evidence might be used to 'prove' a god's existence, and evolutionary scientific evidence might be used to prove a deity does not, in fact, exist--or at least is not neccessary for life, and thus of no concern to humanity.

And here is your concern.  You have fashioned the debate such that evolution = atheism and creationism = theism.  What you have done is said: if God created by evolution there is no God.  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Or, put another way, you have taken your literal interpretation of Genesis and said: If God didn't create this particular way, then God didn't create and doesn't exist.  Can you see the does-not-follow here?  If God is as powerful as you say, can't God have created by evolution?

Now, what I and others are doing is trying to separate the debates because they are not logically connected.  Once you separate the debates, then you can answer people like Provine, Atkins, and Dawkins that think evolution does disprove the existence of deity. You can look critically at their positions as science and see that they are misrepresenting science.  IOW, instead of arguing against evolution and defending creationism, you can effectively argue against atheism and defend theism.

Right, but the law of mass action states that the "Addition of a component on one side of a reversible system drives the reaction in the direction that uses up that compound [Purves et al., p. 30]." So, in the ocean, there's obviously a lot more water, which would in turn drive the reaction to use it up, thus pulling amino acids back apart, even if they'd been stuck together before.

Mass action works in a situation where 1) the system is in equilibrium and 2) the energy of bond formation is low. Such as ionic interactions.  However, the energy of the covalent bond in the peptide bond is such that just having water around isn't going to provide the energy to pull the peptide bond apart. Sulphur gave you a good point: proteins in your cells are in water.  Why aren't they disintegrating?

All right, then let's look at my claim: "there's the problem of getting the amino acids to polymerize (come together) and stay that way." Did I claim that proteins "could not form in water"? No, I simply claimed it was a problem--especially to get them to stay bonded.

You said: "Removing water in a aqueous solution happens in several chemical reactions. It's not a problem. Specific papers that discuss protein formation in water are..." This seems to me to indicate that you thought this paper explained protein synthesis, simply. When I said "So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything.", I obviously meant everything about protein synthesis,

But the papers do explain everythig about protein synthesis.  It does take place in water.  Quite well.  Data trumps claims about "mass action". 

These are indeed good points. ... If the experiment had gone on longer, I'm not sure what would happen. Useless polypeptides might be formed. In dry salty condition, will protein just keep on forming? Won't the heat or UV destroy them? (I'm assuming that this is taking place on land, as it is a dry area as indicated in the paper. Are we talking about CO from hydrothermal vents in the sea, or more volcanic outgassing?)

What are "useless" polypeptides?  Fox's study shows that the odds that any protein will have some type of biological activity is pretty close to 1 -- virtual certainty.  Hydrothermal vents are volcanic outgassing in the sea.

Now, a separate hypothesis and experiment is having proteins form by dry heating and they form until the amino acids run out or until water is added.  When water is added, the proteins spontaneously form cells.  If the heat gets up over 1000 degrees C the proteins will carbonize.  Peptide bonds aren't that susceptible to UV. I've lost track, which paper are you referring to?


But I never questioned whether L- and D- forms could bond if they're oppositely handed. I'm questioning the ability of the protein to fold correctly, etc. Of course I know they can bond together--if they couldn't this whole problem would be solved. My only point was that, as the length of a polypeptide increases, so does the importance of homochirality. This would imply the preceding sentence, which states that homochirality is not essential for polypeptides with only a couple of monomers.

Yes, the protein will fold.  Now, "correctly" is a relative term. Will it fold just like it would if it were homochiral? Probably not. Will the protein still have biological activity? Yes. Will it have the same type of biological activity it would have it were homochiral?  Maybe. Maybe not.


Precisely. Rufus said that:

"I don't know why you included abiotic protein synethesis in your post, since current hypotheses about the origin of life do not consider proteins as the first step. You only include RNA World, which is now considered to have preceded the Protein-DNA world, as almost an after thought to the mainsection of your post. If you really what to address abiogenesis, you should focus your effort there. Concentrating on proteins is a major flaw and/or deception in creationist/idist writers."

I'm afraid Rufus is overstating the case for the RNA World here.  It appears that the abiogensis community has about a 60:40 split concerning an RNA firstrotein first. 

He knows DNA isn't amino acids, and that the bases aren't chiral He's referring to sugars when he speaks about DNA. As for glycine, isn't the R-group simply a H atom?

I haven't seen the effect of L sugars on the double helix of DNA.  This is what I said about glycine in the post previous to the one you are replying to:
"And glycine is present in your proteins. In fact, the collagen of your skin and bones is 1/3 glycine.  Do you have a source to look up the chemical formula of glycine.  Because the "R" group is H, that means that glycine has 2 hydrogens on its carbon atom.  That means that the mirror images of glycine can be superimposed, which means that it won't rotate the plane of polarized light."

Glycine is neither D nor L.  Which refutes Sarfati right there.

But don't proteins simply cease to fold if some of the amino acids aren't in positions that allow it?

No, they simply fold differently. They may have a random walk (unfolded) sequence in the middle, but wherever they can fold, they will.

And a folded protein can undergo denaturation if salt concentrations, pH level, or temperature is increased. Likewise, my textbook says that "Amino acids with large R groups that distort the coil or otherwsie prevent the formation of the necessary hydrogen bonds will keep the a helix from forming (p. 38-39).

An alpha helix is only one way that a protein can fold.  Albumin, for instance, doesn't have any alpha helix in it at all.  And yes, proteins can and do denature.  Often when the conditions are reversed, they fold right up again to their original shape.  Bone morphogenetic protein, for instance, was denatured and re-natured at least 20 times during the purification process. And always refolded with the same biological acitivity.  Some proteins are less robust.  Denature them once and they can't ever regain the original folding.

I must go now. Thank you for being so patient with me.

You are welcome. If you can, get a copy of Lehninger's Biochemistry.  He is a pretty clear author of basic biochemistry.  Of course, he did much of the original work back in the 20s and 30s!

One problem is that there isn't much data on proteins with a mixture of L and D amino acids.  Most biochemists have clinical applications in mind, so they work with biological proteins.  However, that one paper indicated that they are not all that uncommon in biological organisms.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Chase, Once you mentioned that changing one amino acid caused them all to flip. I think I found that reference.  It is about flagellar filaments, each made up of several protofilaments made up of several molecules of flagellin. It's not individual amino acids, but the entire helix of the filament.  Shift some of the protofilaments from left handed to right handed helix (still L amino acids in the proteins) and the whole filament flips into a right handed helix. 

4. D Normile, How bacterial flagella flip their switch.  Science 291: 2065-2066, March 16, 2001.  Flagellar filament made up of 11 protofilaments, each formed by stacking together numerous molecules of flagellin. Flagellin comes in L and R forms (right and left handed) and each filament is all one or the other form.  BUT, one small sequence of amino acids in flagellin will cause entire molecule to flip from R to L under strain.  Is how  bacteria change direction. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
A cell maintains homeostasis between it and its environment through diffusion with active and passive transport. We're not talking about proteins inside and produced by functioning cells--we're talking about little oligopeptides and forming polypeptides in the ocean. They're all by themselves, not protected by anything.

That's one of the beauties of protocells.  Having the proteins spontaneously form cells gives them that protection.

Tertiary structure in the bigger structure consisting of a bunch of secondary structures, among other things like disulfide bridges, etc. If these structures combine, they're still called proteins--just bigger. For example, hemoglobin consists of four tertiary structures.

You did a good job of describing the different types of structure up until here.  Hemoglobin is formed from 4 peptide chains or proteins. Each protein has it's own tertiary structure.  Notice that you have regions of secondary structure -- alpha helixes, beta sheets, leucine zippers -- within single peptide chains. The disulphide bonds can be between different parts of the same peptide chain, not necessarily between two peptides.

So, hemoglobin is also tertiary, but each individual peptide chain has it.

Some proteins are more resistant to denaturation than others. Among the adaptations of thermophiles are proteins that are not denatured by the high temperatures in which they live.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
Chickenman,

A cell maintains homeostasis between it and its environment through diffusion with active and passive transport. We're not talking about proteins inside and produced by functioning cells--we're talking about little oligopeptides and forming polypeptides in the ocean. They're all by themselves, not protected by anything.

Chase, I tracked this down. Chickenman's post is relevant. If you are claiming that mass action will tear peptide bonds apart if they are in water, it doesn't matter whether they are in a cell or not; they are in water.  The homeostasis doesn't include removing water from a cell.  When that happens, cells die.

So, proteins in living cells are constantly surrounded by and in water.  If mass action worked the way you say it works, then those proteins have to degrade.  Of course, that doesn't happen.  Proteins are degraded by specific enzymes to do the job -- proteases.

This is something you should learn to do: take the claim, assume it is true, then take deductions from the claim and compare it to knowledge you already have in an attempt to falsify.  When you do that in this case, Chickenman's data falsifies the picture of mass action and proteins you have painted for us.

 

[Outspoken]

"The second is terrible. "

the second was a broad nonscientific def. I wasn't sure if you wanted context taken into account or not.

"But, does a population have a single genetic code?"

You tell me I gave my def. if you want to give yours we can see.

"Which is it?"

The mech are different in terms of the time aspect.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
The mech are different in terms of the time aspect.

Er... How can time change the mechanism for evolution?

 

[chickenman]

I think outspoken is just typing stuff in the hopes that we'll stop asking, i'm almost certain he hasn't a clue about how the mech changes with time

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
I don't believe that philosophical naturalism is the same thing as atheism, although I could be wrong on that point.

Chase,

You're right, as I will explain below.

Methodical naturalism is the working assumption that only natural forces affect what you observe. Everyone uses this in their everyday life. When the police get a missing person's report they don't think that the person has been raptured. When you go to and ATM to get money for a movie, you trust that little green elves will not sneek into your pants and steel your money before you get to the movie theatre.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't perclude the supernatural though. You and I are both atheists. We both don't believe in Zeus or Hanuman. I just believe in one more god then me.

Metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is the view that the natural word is all that exists. Most western atheists are metaphysical naturalists, but Buddhists who are atheists are not metaphysical naturalists.

However, what I'm suggesting is that perhaps we all interpret scientific evidence on the basis of our philosophy--so perhaps this is a philosophical question. I would interpret one thing as being a significant blow to evolution, while you might interpret that same thing to mean that evolution is, after all, possible. Maybe these apples and oranges form a symbiotic relationship.

Then how do you explain how people from numerious religions, cultures, and philosophies can all agree that evolution is the only explaination for the diversity of life that the data supports?

I'm not questioning right now if evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet--I'm asking if it can naturalistically explain the first crucial step of abiogenesis without invoking a god.

Sure it's called chemistry.

But don't proteins simply cease to fold if some of the amino acids aren't in positions that allow it? And a folded protein can undergo denaturation if salt concentrations, pH level, or temperature is increased. Likewise, my textbook says that "Amino acids with large R groups that distort the coil or otherwsie prevent the formation of the necessary hydrogen bonds will keep the a helix from forming (p. 38-39).

Proteins can only hold their specific active shape in certain enviroments, salt concentrations, pH levels, and temperatures are the most significant enviromental factors. However, even if Protein A denatures at pH 3, protein B which is very similar might require ph 3 to function properly. There are many forms of life that exist in extreme conditions because their proteins have the structure to handle it.

Originally posted by lucaspa:
I'm afraid Rufus is overstating the case for the RNA World here. It appears that the abiogensis community has about a 60:40 split concerning an RNA firstrotein first.

Lucaspa,

Really? Can you give me an idea as to what leads you to that conculsion? Was that opinion formed before or after X-ray crystalography revealed that ther is no protein in the active site of ribosomes. Yeap that's right, in translation peptide bond formation is catalyzed by a ribozyme. Hmm, looks like the death knell for protein first hypothesis.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"what were you thinking evolution is?"

*sigh* is this good enough for you...Change in the genetic "code" of a population through the line of members, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Okay, now can you please provide us with a sample of the published scientic papers that you read or the experiments that you did to convince you that this was false? You did say you researched it, so it shouldn't be hard for you to answer this.

I would also add that its also can be defined as a simple form "growing" into a more complex form.

Well, any word can be defined as anything. "Jesus" can be defined as a soft drink made from mango juice. That doesn't mean that I can use my pet definations to argue against christian theology. Likewise you can equate "evolution" with "development" which was valid some 150 years ago. But the fact remains that modern biology is very strict on what constitutes evolution. Development is not one of them.

I would say you're on the right track, but the mech doesn't happen due to this factor.

Please, if you're going to use pronouns, make them unambiguous. What does "this factor" refer to?

I have more important things to think about and research I've already done research for this and came to my conclusion.

As I said above, please provide us with some of the references for this "research" you've done.

 

[Lanakila]

I have a question for you evolutionists. Explain how man evolved on all the continents. Specifically on the continents of North and South America. This one has me wondering. While you are at it explain how the animals evolved on all the continents, please. Seems to me that evolutionist believe life originally evolved in Africa. Civilization began in the "Fertile Cresent" with Sumeritans ect. How is it that hominds (supposedly) are found all over the world. These supposed early men didn't have the technology to build boats?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have a question for you evolutionists. Explain how man evolved on all the continents.

Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and a small population migrated out. The decendents of this small population population most of the rest of the world. That explains why compared to Africa, the rest of us are highly imbred.

Specifically on the continents of North and South America. This one has me wondering.

In the past the seas were lower and some North-East Asian peoples crossed to the America via the Bering land bridge. In fact, the DNA evidence bears this out. Some American species, like horses, crossed the other way into Asia.

While you are at it explain how the animals evolved on all the continents, please.

Evolution happens by descent with modification. There has always been migration between continents, and continents haven't always looked the way they do now. Migrant populations don't stop evolving, they keep going.

Seems to me that evolutionist believe life originally evolved in Africa.

Wow! That's one big error you got there. You're confusing the origin of man with the origin of life.

Civilization began in the "Fertile Cresent" with Sumeritans ect.

Nope. Again you confuse two things. The earliest forms of agriculture are found in the "Fertile Cresent." Civilization isn't defined by agriculture, though. Furthermore, agriculture was independently invented many times around the world.

How is it that hominds (supposedly) are found all over the world.

We migrate.

These supposed early men didn't have the technology to build boats?

What leads you to believe this?

Lanakila,

I find this recent post of yours hard to reconcile with your claims to have studied evolution and found it lacking.

 

[Outspoken]

"Well, any word can be defined as anything."

LOL, I said specifically that the 2nd was a general defintion, ie not a scientific one..LOL..you're too much ruf

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Well, any word can be defined as anything."

LOL, I said specifically that the 2nd was a general defintion, ie not a scientific one..LOL..you're too much ruf

That's funny because when I read your post, "general defination" is suprisingly absent. It amazes me how you think you can specifically say something that you didn't even say.

/me notices that Outie still hasn't produced any references to this "research" he claims to have done.

 

[Outspoken]

"It amazes me how you think you can specifically say something that you didn't even say."

Oh, my appologies then. did you think I was giving 2 totally different definintions? I thought you would notice that the first one was the one I would be keying on. I guess not?? As for the research, Its all at home and its all messy...I can try and organize it, but I have a 17 page paper due and a quiz coming up, don't count on it

 

[nephilimiyr]

When the theory of evolution was put together and then trying to be sold to the public in the 1800s the people were told or rather promised that a missing link would be found. They said that once found that the theory would then be proven true. While many biologists and paleontologists make it sound as if fossil finds establish a step by step development of lower animal life into more complex forms the fact remains that no missing link has been found. That's why the theory is still a theory. Unlike the theory of relativity, or any of the other thousands of scientific theories that have soon been proven, the theory of evolution remains unproven even after over 100 years of being thought about.

After all the thousand upon thousands of lifeforms that are or has been on this planet there still isn't one shread of evidence of a missing link for any of them. There is no fossil of creature that has been found to suggest that it moved from being one type of animal to another, not one!

Lie's are created to hide the truth of this. For instance it's being said that extinct species are proof. But time and time again the same species that they say helped evolve into another has been proven that they are totally different then them. They may resemble that animal in certain ways but the differences contradict the step by step path evolution is supposed to take.

Evolutionists say animals evolved to cope with their environment. They trot out proof of this by showing simple adaptations the creature went through. These proofs turn out to be normal adaptations however. Bills on some birds, for instance, may become larger during times of drought or shorter in wet periods but the birds don't develop new genetic lines. They are still the same birds only that they have adapted to their conditions just as they have done since their creation. 

Evolutionists say that it took 50,000,000 years for fish to evolve into amphibians. But no missing link has been found. No fossil's have been found to show a fish with part fin and part feet or leg. Plenty of fossils have been found of fish of the same period with fins and plenty of fossil's have been found from the same period of animals with legs and feet but again no missing link. According to the evolutionists there should be 100,000,000 years of missing links but not one has been found.

The topper of this all is that many of the fossil creatures that evolutionists say evolved from other creatures have since proven to have coexisted with their proposed grandparents. Now I ask you, how can you have grandparents younger than their grandchildren?

 LOL, no matter which way you slice it or spin it evolution is a fraud that has been proven untrue. But it does support those who want the bible to be a fairy tale. Oh yes, I believe many scientists believe the theory of evolution is full of holes and wrong but they'd rather believe in something they know they can't prove then believe in a bible account of things!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
G'day Seesaw,

Welcome to the forum. Oh sorry, you're supposed to say that to me!
I understand evolution is based on chance. What is your take on this?

Let me give you Dawkins' discussions of this.

"The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale.  Whatever is the explanation for life, therefore, it cannot be chance.  The true explanation for the existence of life must embody the very antithesis of chance.  The antithesis of chance is nonrandom survival, properly understood.  Nonrandom survival, improperly understood, is not the antithesis of chance, it is chance itself.  There is a continuum connecting these two extremes, and it is the continuum from single-step selection to cumulative selection.  Single-step selection is just another way of saying pure chance.  This is what I mean by nonrandom survival improperly understood.  *Cumulative selection*, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, and the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life's complex design. ...
" To tame chance means to break down the very improbable into less improbable small components arranged in a series. ... However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes of sufficiently finely graded intermediates are less improbable. .. It is the contention of the Darwinian world-view that slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence..  The heart of evolution theory is the power to dissolve astronomical improbabilities and explain prodigies of apparent miracle."  Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 317-318.


"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance.  Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard?  Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion.  One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation.  Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process.  It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not.  Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random.  It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. ...
One could imagine a theoretical world in which mutations were biased toward improvement.  Mutations in this hypothetical world would be non-random not just in the sense that mutations induced by X-rays are non-random: these hypothetical mutations would be systematically biased to keep one jump ahead of selection and anticipate the needs of the organism ...
Darwinians wouldn't mind if such providential mutations were provided. It wouldn't undermine Darwinism, though it would put paid to its claims for exclusivity: a tailwind on a transatlantic flight can speed up your arrival in an agreeable way, and this doesn't undermine your belief that the primary force that got you home is the jet engine." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
While many biologists and paleontologists make it sound as if fossil finds establish a step by step development of lower animal life into more complex forms the fact remains that no missing link has been found.... After all the thousand upon thousands of lifeforms that are or has been on this planet there still isn't one shread of evidence of a missing link for any of them. There is no fossil of creature that has been found to suggest that it moved from being one type of animal to another, not one! ...Evolutionists say that it took 50,000,000 years for fish to evolve into amphibians. But no missing link has been found. No fossil's have been found to show a fish with part fin and part feet or leg. ...
The topper of this all is that many of the fossil creatures that evolutionists say evolved from other creatures have since proven to have coexisted with their proposed grandparents. Now I ask you, how can you have grandparents younger than their grandchildren?

  Here we go again.  There are several types of intermediate fossil series.  All have been found.

1. First, some groups have been so thoroughly studied that we know sequences of transitional fossils which grade continuously from one species to another without break, sometimes linking several successive species which cross from one higher taxon into another. These are transitional individuals.  This takes care of the first requirement.  Examples are below.  Notice that transitionals link two classes (reptiles and mammals are classes).
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.  Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.  (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.  HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"  and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2.  PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.  Nature 330: 561-563, 1987.  Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years.  Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it. 

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406 

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2.  http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Second, other fossil groups have been well enough studied that we know sequences of transitional fossils comprising a series of chronologically successive species grading from an early form to a later form again sometimes crossing boundaries separating different higher taxa.  This type of situation can be termed successive species.  Published descriptions of successive species lack explicit discussion of individual transitionals between the species, although frequently such exist in the author's collection but are not discussed becasue they are not directly pertinent to his purposes.

This is the situation between fish and amphibians and reptiles to mammals.  Part of the fish to amphibian transition can be seen at www.amnh.org and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/index.html  The reptile to mammal transition can be seen at http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Finally, there are individual species  connecting two major groups.  The most famous of these in Archeopteryx, which helped support evolution in the 1860s since creationism never predicted such a creature.  Others since then include:
2.  J A Clack,  A new early Carboniferous tetrapod with a melange of crown-group characters Nature 394, 66: 1998 (July 2).
4.  H Gee, Relics: The creature from the black lagoon
http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=64824792&CAT=Corner&PG=Update/update662.html  Transitional fossil between amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
5.  WL Crepet, The abominable mystery.  Science 282: 1653-1654, Nov. 27, 1998.  Primary article is  G sun, DL Dilcher, S Zheng, and Z Zhou, In search of the first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from Northeast China.  Science 282: 1692-1695, Nov. 27, 1998.  Have intermediate and first angiosperm from the Jurassic.

Were your grandparents required to die on the day you were born?  Perhaps so. But your misfortune is not the norm. Similarly, when lineages split -- one species sprouts off a daughter species in another location -- the original species is not required to die.  The grandparent species aren't "younger" than the grandchildren species, just living alongside them.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have a question for you evolutionists. Explain how man evolved on all the continents. Specifically on the continents of North and South America. This one has me wondering. While you are at it explain how the animals evolved on all the continents, please. Seems to me that evolutionist believe life originally evolved in Africa. Civilization began in the "Fertile Cresent" with Sumeritans ect. How is it that hominds (supposedly) are found all over the world. These supposed early men didn't have the technology to build boats?

First, humans evolved in Africa.  Where the first life originated is up for grabs.  Humans are great travelers.  Even if they only migrate 20 miles every hundred years (a moderate day's walk), that's 200 miles a thousand years.  Since modern humans have been around for 100,000 years, that's 20,000 miles migration even at that snail's pace.  Just about the distance from Africa to the tip of S. America.

It looks like H. erectus had boats 800,000 years ago.  R Kunzig, Erectus afloat.  Discover 20: 80, Jann. 1999.  Data indicate that H. erectus used boats to get to Indonesia 800,000 years ago.