Evolution theory: How can an ability be lost during evolution?

[zian]

Ahimsa:

– not the currently existing species of chimpanzees or gorillas, of course,

I believe this is what I said …

 

[estesbob]

Lady Cygnus:

Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct??

So can I-perhaps we are the missing link!

 

[zian]

2shelbys:

If the Evolution theory is correct, the fossil record should show innumerable slight gradations between earlier species and later ones.

The fact that we have any transitional records of fossils (which we do) is remarkable, given the rarity of fossils surviving to be discovered intact, or enough so. The human fossil record from alone as it exists today from the earliest primates through to Homo erectus and to modern humans is compelling.

2shelbys:

Even Darwin was aware, however, that the fossil record of his day showed nothing of the sort, and not only mentioned this is his book, he devoted an entire chapter to it entitled “The imperfection of the fossil record”.

Obviously, the fossil record has vastly increased since Darwin’s day…

2shelbys:

Since we do not see species changing into other species in the fossils,

Entire species do not just get up one morning and then decide they are going to change into a new species. Parts of a population of a species may be subjected to an adaptive pressure for which corresponding changes occur in their genes that allow them to survive and reproduce in spite of that adaptive pressure. Thus, certain parts of a (ancestral) species population can change over time to, in some cases, take advantage of new or different ecological niches, and over time differentiating themselves from the ancestral population.

2shelbys:

All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era,

That the body plans emerged during the Cambrian does not mean that all the types of organisms appeared during the Cambrian. This is exactly what evolution would predict. The Cambrian “explosion” is clearly a misunderstood metaphor; the Cambrian lasted for several tens of millions of years - hardly “all at once”.

2shelbys:

Many species like the lungfish, va[ious reptiles, and numerous insects have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite major shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the theory of Evolution.

If a species can remain adapted to its environment and reproduce, then there is no reason why it could not continue to survive as a species. Evolution is about adaptation, not change in any particular direction (except for survival). If the environment changes and you are sufficiently able to cope with that change and reproduce, then you can survive with little change.

2shelbys:

It was recently discovered that the earliest “modern man” and the (currently accepted) most advanced “ancestor” that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution as impossible, period.

Must tell you this is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever that any new species could not cohabit with an ancestral species.

Proving evolution wrong is easy (conceptually). Just find, for example, some fossilized human remains amongst the Cambrian fossil strata. I shall await this discovery with great patience.
[/quote]

 

[MikeinSD]

zian:

The fact that we have any transitional records of fossils (which we do) is remarkable, given the rarity of fossils surviving to be discovered intact, or enough so. The human fossil record from alone as it exists today from the earliest primates through to Homo erectus and to modern humans is compelling.

Obviously, the fossil record has vastly increased since Darwin’s day…

Entire species do not just get up one morning and then decide they are going to change into a new species. Parts of a population of a species may be subjected to an adaptive pressure for which corresponding changes occur in their genes that allow them to survive and reproduce in spite of that adaptive pressure. Thus, certain parts of a (ancestral) species population can change over time to, in some cases, take advantage of new or different ecological niches, and over time differentiating themselves from the ancestral population.

That the body plans emerged during the Cambrian does not mean that all the types of organisms appeared during the Cambrian. This is exactly what evolution would predict. The Cambrian “explosion” is clearly a misunderstood metaphor; the Cambrian lasted for several tens of millions of years - hardly “all at once”.

If a species can remain adapted to its environment and reproduce, then there is no reason why it could not continue to survive as a species. Evolution is about adaptation, not change in any particular direction (except for survival). If the environment changes and you are sufficiently able to cope with that change and reproduce, then you can survive with little change.

Must tell you this is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever that any new species could not cohabit with an ancestral species.

Proving evolution wrong is easy (conceptually). Just find, for example, some fossilized human remains amongst the Cambrian fossil strata. I shall await this discovery with great patience.

You are arguing with a closed mind. Nothing will convince folks who do not trust the scientific method that science is correct.

 

[2shelbys]

PhilVaz:

Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale?

My response, part one.

We do not know it. Evolutionists assume it. For every “scientist” on the site you link to, the blatant bias of which is evidenced by the “Darwin fish” at the top of the page, there are an equal (or greater) number that feel that this theory is no more valid than the claim that various species of large land-dwelling dinosaurs are still with us in the form of blue jays, robins, and the like which is also based on supposedly similar bone structures. Charts with lines connecting animals are nice but they mean nothing when the assumptions they are based on are faulty.

A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).

It is true that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. Evolutionists generally claim that these small, yet purposeful structures are vestigial (‘left-over’) traces of "legs” in some ancestor. They choose to believe that each bone of the pair is all that is left of the pelvic bone of the whale’s ancestor which, according to evolutionary doctrine, once walked and ran on land. They believe this even though these strips of bone have a known function, differ in males and females, and are not even attached to the vertebral column. Many claims have been made in recent times that the fossil ancestors of modern whales have been found, and that some extinct creature or another shows the transition from creatures walking on land, with legs, to today’s whales which have no legs.

Pakicetus was claimed to be a ‘walking whale’—yet the type specimen consisted only of jaw and skull fragments. the drawing you posted is nothing more than biased conjecture.

Basilosaurus has been claimed as the whale’s ancestor. However, while it did have functional hind limbs, these were far too tiny to have anything to do with walking, and many evolutionists themselves admit they were probably used for grasping in reproduction.

See part two in the next post.

 

[2shelbys]

PhilVaz:

Phil P

My response, part two

Ambulocetus, with clear-cut hind limbs, was obviously able to walk, and is the latest fossil candidate—but it is doubtful that this imaginatively reconstructed creature had anything to do with the history of whales, as scientific papers have shown. Fossilized bones found in Pakistan are claimed to be those of a “walking whale”, supposedly an ancestor of modern whales. The claim is that it had hind limbs that functioned as legs on land and as flippers in water. The only problem is that the critical parts of the skeleton are missing and it is highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is vital to have the pelvic girdle to determine muscle attachments and demonstrate that there were functioning “leg bones”. No remnants of the pelvic bones are present.

Prothero et al.#2 suggest five features to unite whales:

1. All incisors parallel with the tooth row—not preserved in Ambulocetus
2. Medial lambdoidal crest semicircular—not preserved in Ambulocetus
3. Nasals retracted—rostrum (snout) not preserved in Ambulocetus
4. Protocones small (features of teeth)
5. Accessory cusps large (features of teeth)

Another major characteristic of whales is the horizontal tail flukes. Involvement of the tail in swimming requires strong caudal vertebrae with large processes for muscle attachment. The Ambulocetus fantasy has one ‘caudal’ vertebra which has almost no processes for muscle attachment. Furthermore, this one caudal vertebra was not even found with the rest of the skeleton, being ‘referred material’, found 5 meters above. In other words, the whole of the lumbar, pelvic and caudal parts of Ambulocetus were ‘constructed’ from just one lumbar vertebra, one femur, a small piece of tibia (no fibula, no pelvis), a small piece of the ball of the ankle joint and a few foot and toe bones. None of these are known without doubt to be part of the same animal as they were not all found at the same level. And yet a detailed description is given of how the animal *moved *in water and on land. This is absolute fantasy.

The assumption that evolutionists make that this was any relative of the whale is WILD speculation with no basis in scientific method.

The changes required in the evolutionary belief system for a land animal to become a whale are incredibly complex and far reaching. Evolutionist Anthony Martin explains:

‘Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface. ‘This adaptation was achieved by changing every part of the body, particularly the head … As well as changes to the head, adaptation to an aquatic way of life brought about fundamental alterations to the rest of the body.

Such a metamorphesis in any creature is pure fantasy and as shown this fantasy is based on staggeringly incomplete information.

Your arrogant and condescending insrtuction to “read a book” is typical of evolutionists. You support ludicrous theories with no basis in scientific method all the while convinced that you are so much more intelligent and informed than we stupid Christians. How wrong you are.

 

[2shelbys]

zian:

The fact that we have any transitional records of fossils (which we do) is remarkable, given the rarity of fossils surviving to be discovered intact, or enough so. The human fossil record from alone as it exists today from the earliest primates through to Homo erectus and to modern humans is compelling.

No, actually we have no such thing. The few such “transitional” fossils are the subject of wild conjecture as in the case of “walking whales” as you can see in my response to Phil.

Obviously, the fossil record has vastly increased since Darwin’s day…

Yes, it has vastly increased but what it indicates has not changed at all.

Entire species do not just get up one morning and then decide they are going to change into a new species. Parts of a population of a species may be subjected to an adaptive pressure for which corresponding changes occur in their genes that allow them to survive and reproduce in spite of that adaptive pressure. Thus, certain parts of a (ancestral) species population can change over time to, in some cases, take advantage of new or different ecological niches, and over time differentiating themselves from the ancestral population.

While this could be possible (if evolution was a viable theory) it would only be possible in remotely separated populations and not in small parts of a population in one region.

That the body plans emerged during the Cambrian does not mean that all the types of organisms appeared during the Cambrian.

No it does not but all current evidence indicates that those that did appeared in a form that went unchanged until their extinction or even until today in those that survive.

Must tell you this is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever that any new species could not cohabit with an ancestral species.

No, it is exactly right and yes there is a very good reason as I stated above. Even if evolution occured it would not affect only some individuals while leaving others in the same region unchanged. Even evolutionists do not make this claim.

Proving evolution wrong is easy (conceptually). Just find, for example, some fossilized human remains amongst the Cambrian fossil strata. I shall await this discovery with great patience.

Proving evolution wrong is easy (scientifically) and has been done in so far as all available evidence serves to disprove, not prove evolutionary theory.

 

[PhilVaz]

Shelby << Your arrogant and condescending insruction to “read a book” is typical of evolutionists. You support ludicrous theories with no basis in scientific method all the while convinced that you are so much more intelligent and informed than we stupid Christians. How wrong you are. >>

Do read a book, do visit a library, I hear they’re good. And another, and another. They’re all good. Evolution will sink in eventually. You can’t run away from these books forever. I’m Catholic maybe I wasn’t clear?

That Answers In Genesis article on Ambulocetus and whale evolution has been demolished by Babinski et al. I call your attention to these in particular. The AIG material is total distortion and simply wrong. They have to distort the evidence since they can’t allow any transitional fossils in their young-earth “interpretations” of Genesis. On the evolution of whales:

The origin of whales and the power of independent evidence

I have to quote this again, but a fuller paragraph this time:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

Do read another book, I hear they’re good and quite popular these days now that he has become Pope.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Yes, I can copy/paste with the best of them.

Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps? Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates? Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates? Why do we find in the fossil record and geological column, prokaryotes appearing first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates and finally man? Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

Why do legless snakes such as pythons carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin? Why do some lizards carry rudimentary, nonfunctional legs underneath their skin? Why do many blind cave-dwelling animals, such as the Mexican fish tetra, the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, have rudimentary vestigial eyes? Why do dandelions reproduce without reproduction yet retain flowers and produce pollen? Why are there flightless beetles which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers? Why do over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars which are often malformed, impacted, causing significant pain, increased risk for injury, but are useful for chewing and grinding plant material?

Why do we find rare mutant whales that occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs, or some whales with femurs, tibia, fibulae, and some include feet with complete digits? Why are there rare formation of extra toes in horses? Why are there atavistic thigh muscles in birds and sparrows? Hyoid muscles and atavistic dew claws in many dogs? Wings in normally wingless earwigs? Atavistic reduced fibulae in birds? Extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders? Atavisms in humans, such as very rare true human tails some which are complex structures that have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae, cartilage, can move and contract, and are occasionally inherited?

Why does the gene that is required for Vitamin C synthesis, a pseudogene that is incapable of functioning, found in humans and guinea pigs, and in other primates? Why are there multiple odorant receptor genes? The RT6 protein gene? The galactosyl transferase gene? The tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) ? Why do we share these vestigial genes, and the mutations that made these genes nonfunctional, with other primates?

Why do marsupials (kangaroos, etc) only inhabit Australia? Why are placental mammals virtually absent on Australia, despite the fact that many would flourish there? Why do the southern reaches of South America and Africa and all of Australia share lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs, all of which occur nowhere else? Why do alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias only occur in Eastern North America and East Asia?

Why do we find marsupial fossils on both South America and on Antarctica, since there are none there now? Why is every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse found on the North American continent? Why do we find early hominid fossils on the African continent, and why are numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes found in southern and eastern Africa, but not elsewhere?

Why are the same bones in the same relative positions used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs? Why does the fossil record show a general chronological progression of intermediate forms between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, in which theropod structures were modified into modern bird structures?

Why do humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome-c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93 ? Why do human and chimpanzee cytochrome-c proteins differ by only about 10 amino acids from all other mammals, when the chance occurrence of this in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10^29 ? Why is bat cytochrome-c much more similar to human cytochrome-c than to hummingbird cytochrome-c? Why is porpoise cytochrome-c much more similar to human cytochrome-c than to shark cytochrome-c? Why does the phylogenetic tree data constructed from the cytochrome-c data exactly recapitulate the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data?

Why are the cytochrome-c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical? Why do the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome-c in humans and chimps differ by only one base, a 0.3% difference, even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein?

Easy questions for Answers In Genesis, I’m sure. Now copy/paste your answers.

Phil P

 

[zian]

MikeinSD:

You are arguing with a closed mind. Nothing will convince folks who do not trust the scientific method that science is correct.

After reading the replies of 2shelbys to PhilP and myself, I find it hard to see how I am the one with the closed mind.
You are right though; some people still think the earth is flat.

 

[zian]

2shelbys:

No, actually we have no such thing. The few such “transitional” fossils are the subject of wild conjecture as in the case of “walking whales” as you can see in my response to Phil.

Use Google, go to Jim Foley’s talk.origins faq, and follow the links to the discussion on the current understanding of the human fossil record. You are misinformed - there clearly are many such things.

2shelbys:

No, it is exactly right and yes there is a very good reason as I stated above. Even if evolution occured it would not affect only some individuals while leaving others in the same region unchanged. Even evolutionists do not make this claim.

Sorry, but this is exactly what evolution is. Traits that preferentially increase the survivability and ability to reproduce of some members of a population are passed on to members of succeeding generations of that population, eventually spreading to the entire population because of the increased viability.

2shelbys:

Proving evolution wrong is easy (scientifically) and has been done in so far as all available evidence serves to disprove, not prove evolutionary theory.

Well, you’re right ; if you continue to deny all the available evidence, then you will never be convinced that evolution happens.

Read PhilP’s links with an open mind, brother. We are trying to help you understand here.

 

[neophyte]

Lady Cygnus:

Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct??

I can do it too. Last time I checked, I wasn’t extinct, so I guess that makes me a monkey.

 

[MikeinSD]

zian:

After reading the replies of 2shelbys to PhilP and myself, I find it hard to see how I am the one with the closed mind.
You are right though; some people still think the earth is flat.

I wasn’t referring to you

Just have done my share of posting re: the mental health professions and found many posters argue from a non-scientific perspective.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Originally Posted by Lady Cygnus
Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct??

I can do it too. Last time I checked, I wasn’t extinct, so I guess that makes me a monkey.

**My point was that being able to balance on one foot with both eyes closed does not mean that a species can evolve because, how important is it to be able find food and to mate on one foot with one’s eyes closed. **

** Then I remembered college.**

 

[mlchance]

abcdefg:

Humans can’t balance on one feet with both eyes closed but monkeys and apes can.

When I read this, I became curious. So I stood up, closed both eyes, lifted one foot off the ground, and balanced on the other foot.

I guess I’m not human.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rossum]

2shelbys:

We did not “Evolve” from any other species.

Have you ever seen the attached picture? Apart from the first, the skulls are in chronological order. The first is a modern Chimpanzee, the last is a modern Homo sapiens. Looks reasonably convincing to me. Over time the brain size is increasing gradually.

2shelbys:

Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans.

Yes, that is exactly what evolution predicts, it is a consequence of the nested hierarchy. What does happen is that within each category such as “Chimp” more species appear. There are two species of chimp currently. Once there was only one. Have a look at the fruit fly species on Hawaii for an even better example.
The story of Hawaii’s Drosophila began several million years ago. Most likely, one solitary fertilized female, carried by wind for thousands of miles, landed safely somewhere in the Hawaiian archipelago. From that single, genetic ancestor, a population of flies evolved here that today numbers in the hundreds. Five hundred and eleven to be exact with another four or five hundred in collections waiting to be described and named. Dr. Kaneshiro and others believe that eventually there will be over one thousand species of Drosophila listed. From a single colonizing event, hundreds and hundreds of new species have derived. This type of speciation is known as adaptive radiation and the Hawaiian Drosophila are considered to be the world’s supreme example. If only for this amazing evolution, our Drosophila would be fascinating, but the story continues.
Taken from here.

2shelbys:

All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era

Incorrect. There are a number of phyla for which there is no fossil record at all. Soft bodied marine invertebrates do not always fossilise well. These are an existing “major body plan” for which there is no evidence when they originated. You cannot claim that these phyla originated in the Cambrian explosion.
[E]leven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record
See here for more details.

Insects are not a phylum, if that is what you intended by “major body plan”. Insects certainly originated after the Cambrian. If insects, then why not amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds or dinosaurs. All of these also originated after the Cambrian.

2shelbys:

It was recently discovered that the earliest “modern man” and the (currently accepted) most advanced “ancestor” that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution as impossible, period.

Many Americans claim to have descended from Europeans. It has recently been shown that Americans and Europeans actually co-exist therefore it is impossible that any Americans are descended from Europeans. Hmmm. Not such a good argument is it. I am descended from my parents, yet I am currently co-existing with my parents. This is a really bad argument. I suggest that you complain to whoever gave it to you.

rossum

 

[zian]

MikeinSD:

I wasn’t referring to you

Cheers. I was just going back through the posts and I reread yours and saw how I misunderstood it. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[2shelbys]

Part one.

Yes, I can copy/paste with the best of them.

Yes, and you are even better at droning on citing endless supposed proofs that are at best based on nothing but speculation and which are often completely irrelevant. I know there is no hope of reaching someone who supports the ridiculous notion that inventing a complete animal from a few sparse bones that admittedly were not even found in the same location supposedly proves whale evolution, so I will be as brief as possible so as not to waste too much time. In fact, I have no hope that you would value my word and so I will answer you with a sampling of the words of the works you and Zian have directed me to as proof of your beliefs.

Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps?

We do not.

“…particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.”

“These really could be ancestral.”

“…not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.”

“…may not have been the direct ancestor”

Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates?

Again, we do not. Unless you consider the term “exquisite” to mean “incomplete”.

“This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known.”

“…sometimes considered to be the first mammals”

“…probably arose from the therocephalians”

“…indicating possible endothermy?”

“…possibly a sign of parental care.”

“…suspected to have existed even earlier”

“This is probably a “cousin” fossil not directly ancestral.”

“These are probably “cousin” fossils, not directly ancestral.”

“…gap of about 30 my in the late Triassic”

“…leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals.”

“Probably cousin fossils (?),”

“On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition,”

“A gappy transition”. It sounds like these scientists do not share your belief in an “exquisite” series of fossils. But then again, you know more than they do, don’t you?

Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates?

As I already stated we do not. This claim is based on completely un-scientific conjecture.

You may refuse to face the fact that Ambulocetus (and several other links in your “walking whale” chain) are complete fabrications based on a handful of bones admittedly found in separate locations but your refusal to face the facts does not alter the facts.

 

[2shelbys]

Part two.

Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

Maybe for the reason you believe and maybe not. While evolutionists consider this proof of the theory of Common Descent from a common ancestor it could just as easily be proof of a common creator of all life.

Why do over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars which are often malformed, impacted, causing significant pain, increased risk for injury, but are useful for chewing and grinding plant material?

Only plant material? You are right, I never chew meat with my molars as they are useless for that purpose. As with most claims of vestigial limbs this is pure conjecture. Snakes are always described as having vestigial legs and yet there is not one fossil snake with legs and the possibility that these have a valid function such as aiding stable connection during reproduction are ignored although this possibility is obvious to anyone with experience in snake breeding.

Why are there rare formation of extra toes in horses? Extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders? Atavisms in humans, such as very rare true human tails some which are complex structures that have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae, cartilage, can move and contract, and are occasionally inherited?

So, birth defects are proof of evolution? The presence of twelve fingers or toes on a human is proof of evolution from which primate species? “True human tails” are also nothing more than a birth defect which is the result of incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic spinal tail found in the developing human fetus.

I could go on but why bother? You consider the complete fabrication of Ambulocetus from a handful of fossils admittedly found 5 meters apart to be sound scientific methodology. You overlook the fact that the skull was discovered in lower to middle Eocene beds where fossils from whales of the suborder Archeoceti have been found and that the single vertibra found 5 meters away just might belong to a separate animal. They simply HAVE to be from the same animal because it fits your belief system.

The entire body of evolution theory rests on statements like those above: “probably”, “maybe”, ‘possibly”, “believed to be”, “suspected”. And yet there are those like you who consider this to be solid evidence. You are so typical of most of the evolutionists I have wasted my time talking to. You consider incomplete or completely fabricated evidence as gospel. You talk of “exquisite” series of fossils and complete transitional species when even the scientists responsible for the finds readily admit to the gaps in the record and the incompleteness of fossil remains. And yet you still remain absolutely convinced of your superior intellect. It would almost be amusing if it was not so sad. If the day comes that science does conclusively prove evolution I will be the first to seek you out and admit that you were right but until that day comes I am through wasting my time.

 

[2shelbys]

zian:

Use Google, go to Jim Foley’s talk.origins faq, and follow the links to the discussion on the current understanding of the human fossil record. You are misinformed - there clearly are many

such things.

I went there. This is a sampling of what I found:

Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs

An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs
Probably no eardrum

probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides

This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known.

sometimes considered to be the first mammals

Probably arose from the therocephalians

indicating possible endothermy?

possibly a sign of parental care.

suspected to have existed even earlier

This is probably a “cousin” fossil not directly ancestral

leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals

These are probably “cousin” fossils, not directly ancestral

particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx

not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds

May not have been the direct ancestor

probably at the beginning of the ape lineage

probably ancestral to the great apes & humans

probably ancestral to gibbons.

Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found).

There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. … this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids

At least the professionals do not hesitate to admit to the huge gaps in the fossil record.

Sorry, but this is exactly what evolution is…

No, that is what adaptation is. Evolution is the evolving of one species into another and as clearly shown even in the works you cite there is not one proven example of it ever happening. All such claims are based on conjecture as in the examples above. I know that is enough proof for some people who want to believe but it is mere opinion to me.

Well, you’re right ; if you continue to deny all the available evidence, then you will never be convinced that evolution happens.

That is because the “evidence” is not evidence at all.

Read PhilP’s links with an open mind, brother. We are trying to help you understand here.

I have read them and many others. I would love to see undeniable proof of either evolution or creation but as of right now no conclusive proof of either exists. I fully understand what you believe, I just do not understand why you consider it proven when even the scientists you cite admit to the incompleteness of evidence. At least you are not rude and condescending about it.

This exercise is futile on both our parts so I am moving on to other threads.

Take care and best wishes.