Microevolution

[ChooseAndAct]

I find it strange that members of this forum say that they accept microevolution but deny the existence of macroevolution.

There is one simple fact of life that shows this is impossible. This fact is that it is possible to kill off every member of a species... to make it go extinct. Extinctions occur all the time and have occurred throughout the Earth's history. The estimated rate of extinction for a species in the Earth's history is between one and ten a year due to natural factors and several hundred times higher than that due to human interference. http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_background.htm

Now those that subscribe only to microevolution will assert that

a dog still remains a dog in the grand scheme of things.

and that there are no new species being formed.

If all the species were created there would be a certain number of total species. We'll call this number X. We can set X to any number we like as we don't know how many species there actually are. All we know about X is that it is a finite number and it can never increase because a dog remains a dog so there can be no new species.

Just for fun let's set X to 1,000,000 (I know that the actual number of species is much higher than this but it doesn't matter what number we use). There are 1,000,000 species and between one and ten are going exitance every year. After the first year there would be between 999,990 and 999,999 species. Even using the most conservative estimate in one million years there would be 0 species alive on Earth. And even if you set X to a much higher number say one billion the number will still have to approach 0 as species go extinct and no new species are formed.

Now matter how high the number is set we should certainly see fewer species now than 100 years ago and fewer still than 1,000,000 years ago. This is simply not the case.

We had better hope that macroevolution exists or Earth is going to be a very lonely place to live indeed.

[Sleepy]

Sleepy

In each and every case all I see is the same thing FULLY formed feathers.

Then you aren't looking close enough. The fossil feathers range from elongated scutes, bare shafts, Kiwi style pseudo-feathers, down type fluff feathers to flight feathers(though not as developed as modern bird flight feathers). As the article states, all the different types from wingless tree-dwelling theropods to the "bi-plane" fossil with flight feathers on it's hind limbs are represented. The feather(and therefore birds)dino connection can not be denied.

As I said, the evidence keeps piling up on my side, where is yours???

Grumpy

elongated scutes - Alan Brush's work on reptile scutes and bird feathers has show that they are chemically and genetically unrelated. The evolutionary thinking on bird scutes is that they evolved from feathers. It is therefore in evolutionary terms highly unlikely that these are evolutionary proto-feathers in dinosaurs. To add to the inconclusiveness of this so called evidence of yours, if you look at the work of Niswander, he presents an argument that scutes evolved from feathers.

bare shafts - Technically these are quills, I presume you are talking about Caudipteryx here? This creature had down feathers (fully formed) and what appears to be quills although closer inspection or better quality fossils have revealed these to be long feathers up to 8 inches long on the tail. You may also be noting the Shuvuuia which appeared at 80 million years in the fossil record, it was covered in hollow shafts. The conclusion is that this was a feathered creature.

Kiwi style pseudo-feathers - I presume you are talking about Sinosauropteryx or Beipiaosaurus. You cannot unfortunately present these as evolutionary developing feathers. These creatures appeared 20 million years after Archeopteryx, 10 million years after Mircroraptor and 5 million years after Cryptovolans and after many other fully flight feathered 'dinosaurs'. Backwards evolution? Had these been earlier than the fully flight capable or down covered feathered dino's we would not be having this discussion.

The only interesting species at the moment is the Sinornithosaurus from around 120 million years ago which has possible protofeathers but there is currently still debate as to if they are merely down feathers and more fossils of this species are needed. However as you will notice, this creature still appears much later than the full flight feather appeared

As I said, the evidence keeps piling up on my side, where is yours???

I see nothing of the sort, but then it doesn't take much to convince you does it.

Do you find it curious that you require me to provide evidence that I doubt the evidence? I find this quite amusing given how often atheism is justified on this exact same argument. We are after all debating evolution here and I have not suggested anything other than doubting that the mechanism micro to macroevolution is insufficient to generate what we know? I asked for evidence and as yet all you have provided me with is fully developed feathers, of inconsistent timelines as evidence that feathers evolved. This is why the debate is still going on in the literature!

I don't have to own my own restaurant to be a restaurant critic do I?

[Grumpy]

Sleepy

elongated scutes - Alan Brush's work on reptile scutes and bird feathers has show that they are chemically and genetically unrelated

Alan Brush's work says feathers are unrelated to reptilian SCALES, scutes(a different structure) are chemicly and geneticly connected to feathers.

Feathers most likely originated as a filamentous insulation structure, or possibly as markers for mating, with flight emerging only as a secondary purpose. It had been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but recent research casts doubt on this homology (see Quarterly Review of Biology 77:3 (September 2002): 261-95). Experiments show that the same protein (when missing before birth) that causes bird feet to stay webbed, causes bird scutes (thick scales on the top of the feet, different in composition to reptilian scales) to become feathers.

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

bare shafts - Technically these are quills, I presume you are talking about Caudipteryx here?

Actually I was speaking of a fossil recently found in China(as we were talking of earlier).

Kiwi style pseudo-feathers - I presume you are talking about Sinosauropteryx or Beipiaosaurus. You cannot unfortunately present these as evolutionary developing feathers. These creatures appeared 20 million years after Archeopteryx,

No one claims that evolution is linear, neat or progressive. Just because some specimens still have primitive features long after others have moved on in no way invalidates the fact that these creatures have a strong connection to birds(their feathers). An Archeopteryx fossil was found with a more highly developed bird fossil(evidently it's lunch)fossilized in it's stomach!!! My point that dinosaurs(feathered or not) evolved into birds along a not yet well defined lineage is not debateable. The feathers clinch the argument. Archeopteryx is a signpost along that lineage, as are the fossils found in China.

The only interesting species at the moment is the Sinornithosaurus from around 120 million years ago which has possible protofeathers but there is currently still debate as to if they are merely down feathers and more fossils of this species are needed. However as you will notice, this creature still appears much later than the full flight feather appeared

Ostrages and Kiwis do not have flight feathers either, so what's your point??? If it does not fly it has no need of flight feathers. Just because flight feathers appear before a specimen that does not have them means little.

Doesn't make any difference, the Dino/bird connection is clearly established. I really would not be suprised to hear that ALL dinosaurs were born with down. Nor would it suprise me to hear that TRex had plumage on it's head like a Peacock or Quail(don't laugh too hard, he'll hear you and eat you). Feathers define birds, no bird exists today that do not have them. The fact that they developed on dinosaurs before birds existed means that some lineage of dinosaur led to every species of Aves extant today.

I rest my case, my point is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Grumpy

[Sleepy]

So you just totally ignore the primative feathers found on therapods in China? Is this not showing the progression from nondifferentiated feathers to flight feathers on other fossils?

My point that dinosaurs(feathered or not) evolved into birds along a not yet well defined lineage is not debateable.

The fact that they developed on dinosaurs before birds existed means that some lineage of dinosaur led to every species of Aves extant today.

Utterly based on biased interpretation of the evidence!

For something to develop from one thing to another there is a stage of development. You call these stages 'not yet well defined lineage' but then assume it must have happened.

I rest my case, my point is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only in your own mind. You have proved nothing. You argue right at the start of this thread that it is a "progression from nondifferentiated feathers to flight feathers". Then say that "No one claims that evolution is linear, neat or progressive" yet this is precisely what you did claim. Finally you kill your own logic with "My point that dinosaurs(feathered or not) evolved into birds along a not yet well defined lineage is not debateable. The feathers clinch the argument.". You argue that dinosaurs evolved to birds feathers or not, and then say feathers clinch it. Utter contradiction. You will not see me back on this thread as you are wasting my time. You change the rules, move the boundaries and then produce consistently inconsistent posts. Finally you claim "I rest my case, my point is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. "

Pure naturalist conjecture and twisting of the evidence. I rest my case.

[Grumpy]

Sleepy

A drive by???

Archeopteryx is a signpost on the way from the theropod it's skeleton resembles closely, to the birds we see today. It's feathers are not debateable, nor are it's teeth and skeletal features. What part of"If it has feathers, it's related to birds." do you dispute???

The recent finds in China only add to the view that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Icing on the cake, so to say. The dino/bird connection is well established!!!

I realize creationists have no valid arguement refuting these facts, but your ad hominim is not improving your position.

Grumpy

[Sleepy]

Those Chinese fossil beds are full of both birds and feathered and un-feathered therapod dinosaurs at the same geological level.
In addition there are a significant number of small mammals, fish, insects, trees and flowering plants, many of which are alive and kicking today.

Now go wave your whimsical fantasies at someone who does not share your biased naturalistic assumptions.

I am not coming at this debate with creationist assumptions. I am merely disputing the micro to macroevolutionary mechanism as presented by neo darwinists...

You are convinced.

I am not because of what I see as dramatically inconsistent evidence. Believe what you will.

There is a lack of consistent series and rather sudden appearance of flight feathered dinosaurs (your beloved archeopteryx). You are using organisms 30 million years later to suggest that they occured 60 million years earlier but have no proof of those prior organisms.

You ignore the context of the fossils and the occurrence of birds in the same layers.

Yet despite all this.. wonderfully birds evolved from dinosaurs in a clear line of transition.

Astounding naturalistic presumption.

Case rested. No point carrying on... you are just going to say the same thing again.

It is utterly presumptions and thereby unscientific. But then you probably define science in terms of naturalism before science is possible, as is the habit among scientists these days. Well have your day and make the most of it. The walls are already beginning to fall.

[Grumpy]

sleepy

Your anti-science position is noted...and rejected by those of us who have actually studied the evidence.

Microevolution is a logical falacy, there is only evolution and the evidence supporting it is indisputable. Though we could argue about the details of mechanism and evidence, the fact that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today is as certain as the sun appearing to rise in the east tommorrow.

Deny it if you wish, I have had to give up on many of my students in the years I taught physics and chemistry. The only detrimental effect was that they failed to get ahead in those sciences, while I concentrated my efforts on educating those more willing or able to learn.

Believe whatever you will, science will continue unimpeded.

Grumpy

[achilles12604]

I find it strange that members of this forum say that they accept microevolution but deny the existence of macroevolution.

There is one simple fact of life that shows this is impossible. This fact is that it is possible to kill off every member of a species... to make it go extinct. Extinctions occur all the time and have occurred throughout the Earth's history. The estimated rate of extinction for a species in the Earth's history is between one and ten a year due to natural factors and several hundred times higher than that due to human interference. http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_background.htm

Now those that subscribe only to microevolution will assert that
Quote:
a dog still remains a dog in the grand scheme of things.


and that there are no new species being formed.

If all the species were created there would be a certain number of total species. We'll call this number X. We can set X to any number we like as we don't know how many species there actually are. All we know about X is that it is a finite number and it can never increase because a dog remains a dog so there can be no new species.

Just for fun let's set X to 1,000,000 (I know that the actual number of species is much higher than this but it doesn't matter what number we use). There are 1,000,000 species and between one and ten are going exitance every year. After the first year there would be between 999,990 and 999,999 species. Even using the most conservative estimate in one million years there would be 0 species alive on Earth. And even if you set X to a much higher number say one billion the number will still have to approach 0 as species go extinct and no new species are formed.

Now matter how high the number is set we should certainly see fewer species now than 100 years ago and fewer still than 1,000,000 years ago. This is simply not the case.

We had better hope that macroevolution exists or Earth is going to be a very lonely place to live indeed.

I'm not going to read through all 4 pages so far. Rather I will simply point out why this arguement for macroevolution is flawed.

Most of the species being killed off are found in regions of the world where a great deal of change is occuring to their environment. The species can not adapt so they die off.

However, species that can adapt (dogs, cats, sheep, racoons, etc) are not going extinct. Their numbers are the same or higher but they are far from extinct.

Therefore, I suggest that while we may end up stagnating at a lower number than we started with, there will never be a time when all species are extinct and further I submit that this has nothing at all to do with evolution.

[Sleepy]

sleepy

Your anti-science position is noted...and rejected by those of us who have actually studied the evidence.

Microevolution is a logical falacy, there is only evolution and the evidence supporting it is indisputable. Though we could argue about the details of mechanism and evidence, the fact that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today is as certain as the sun appearing to rise in the east tommorrow.

Deny it if you wish, I have had to give up on many of my students in the years I taught physics and chemistry. The only detrimental effect was that they failed to get ahead in those sciences, while I concentrated my efforts on educating those more willing or able to learn.

Believe whatever you will, science will continue unimpeded.

Grumpy

...so after all the talk of evidence the final word on the matter is...

"Well i teach chemistry and physics so i know better"

"the fact that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today is as certain as the sun appearing to rise in the east tommorrow"

The tautology of the 20th century founded not in science but in naturalism.

Like I said not much point carrying on when you keep shifting your opinion to suit your choice of facts, and when clear refutation is provided by my last post you default to the 'well i know better and its true anyway' position.

Sad but true, maybe those students that refused to agree with you could have taught you a thing or two about your assumptions. Maybe this is why they gave up on science, because they know it will not lead them to truth but into a ring of bad assumptions. I know of countless able students that purposely do not go into science because of teachers who think they have all the answers when it is quite obvious they are pridefully sitting on a set of assumptions. It is arrogance such as in these teachers that put people off education all together.

Case rested. No point carrying on... you are just going to say the same thing again.

Unless you have anything new to bring to this table of course because the feather thing didn't manage it.

[Grumpy]

Sleepy

Like I said not much point carrying on when you keep shifting your opinion to suit your choice of facts, and when clear refutation is provided by my last post you default to the 'well i know better and its true anyway' position.

You have refuted nothing. We evolved from bacteria, yet bacteria still exist today. The evolutionary path from dinosaurs may not be completely documented(as in having a movie of the whole lineage) but we do have documented examples of transitional creatures(as in snapshots of the lineage in various transitional forms). Signposts giving general directions instead of pictures of every inch of ground on the journey still gives adequite direction.

Handwave all you like, science will still be unaffected by your lack of knowledge.

Grumpy