If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Autodidact]

I am not able to understand how the origin of life has no berring on evolution and the discussion of evolution. Sure, if it has no berring it's a red herring, but it yes, then not (if you get my drift).

Is there a greater example of macro-evolution than a group of molecules, being of the correct figuration and type, being in the right place, becoming alive?

I do seem to see why it's avoided in an evolution discussion: it takes faith to believe and as I said, more faith than I have.

I dropped all the embedded quotes to make this a bit more readable.

Dokimas, you're sort of missing the explanation of the red herring. How life started is as unrelated to evolution as how mass got created is unrelated to gravity.

Evolution says... Assume there is life. Assume there is variation. Assume that variation is heritable. Now, evolution explains how a species can change over time and even split off into two distinct species. It does not care about how life first got there. Now you say that evolution must describe how life first emerged to be true, but evolution assumes that there is life to start with. As long as there is life, evolution works. That is why what you bring up is a red herring.

The parallel for theory of gravity would be. Assume there are two bodies. Assume each body has a mass. Gravity explains that there is a force of attraction between those two bodies proportional to the product of their masses. No where in this must it be described HOW the bodies were created to have mass in order for gravity to be true.

We/Scientists aren't dodging the discussion of how life got started. It's a very interesting research topic that many people pursue. However, regardless of how life got started whether it was through creation or abiogenesis, evolution would STILL be true.

Thank you for this explanation, but I'm still struggling with this idea of 'how life got here has no bearing on evolution'.

Remember the OP says if micro then macro. If abiogenisis is true, then the OP is correct. If life needed a Creator to exist, then micro evolution can exist while macro evolution is not a forgone conclusion.

Just ask yourself this. Do you believe in gravity? If you say yes (which I dearly hope ), then you believe in it despite not knowing how matter was created. The same is true for evolution, you can accept evolution without knowing how life was created. As long as there is life, there is evolution.

As for micro versus macro, the only difference between the two (as I'm sure has been mentioned many times in this thread) is that macro takes longer. It's enough small "microevolutions" until two populations can no longer interbreed. To see speciation in progress, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I'd be happy to. Could you tell me what you mean by "macro-evolution?" I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, or that you understand what the Theory of Evolution is/says. It might help if, before I set out the huge, enormous, overwhelming evidence that caused the entire science of Biology to accept it as the foundational theory of modern Biology, I explained exactly what it is. I find that most creationists are extremely confused about it, and are actually opposed to a theory that does not exist.

[Autodidact]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

NO, it's not. One is science, and is based on evidence. The other is religion, and is based on faith, don't you agree?

[Autodidact]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

Then, I will show define macro evolution , and then show examples. It might be futile,, because you refuse to give your criteria for 'macroevolution'..

Macro evolution is a specification event.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Your examples: were they controled experiments?

Moving goal posts here??? I have examples, and now you want 'controlled examples'?? In the past, people who have used that tactics then went on to complain about the controlled experimenter that were conducted, saying it was in the lab, and not out in real life.

Do you actually want 'controlled experiments', or are you just being snarky?

Your observation is correct. If they are controled experiment then the best conclusion is that intelligence is involved in these processes taking less faith to believe in God than in atheistic evolution, IMO.

So you want evidence that is neither field observation nor a controlled experiment? Seriously?

[Dokimas]

Your observation is correct. If they are controled experiment then the best conclusion is that intelligence is involved in these processes taking less faith to believe in God than in atheistic evolution, IMO.

So, these observations, that are in the wild, aren't acceptable because they are in the wild, and therefore not 'controlled', and a controlled experiment is 'evidence that intelligence is involved ' (never mind it is just observation of separation over time)'

In other words, no evidence, no matter how complete, would be satisfactory to you, because you have faith in God.

Once again I must apologized for being confusing.

I said nothing about observations in the wild. I only asked about the ones you sighted by asking if they were controled experiments. If they were observations 'in the wild' then I would understand better your point. If the observations were part of a controled experiment, then they'd better point to the need of a Creator than creatorless natural evolution.

[micatala]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

How life started is an interesting and worthy question.

However, goat is correct. With respect to the theory of evolution, it is a red herring and does not need to be answered for us to examine the evidence of the history of life and know that evolution has occurred.

To give you another analogy, your position is like saying that if we do not know where a person is born, we cannot say anything at all about his later life.

Or, if we do not know when or where a criminal woke up on the day he committed a crime, we must throw out all the evidence from video cameras, forensics, eyewitnesses etc. related to the crime that he committed that evening.

If the question of how life started is not important for discussing evolution, then why are creationists asked where God came from in most any discourse about the origin of life as we know it?

First, this is another red herring, and does nothing to refute the fallaciousness of your assertion regarding the beginning of life and evolution.

Secondly, I would say it is a reasonable question to ask, but as I am not one to pose such a question, I am not sure I should address it. I am a Christian and do consider God as the ultimate creator. God's existence and role as creator or sustainer of the universe is a theological issue, not a scientific one.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no question that evolution has occurred, that life has change a very great deal over the long history of the earth.

What theological implications these facts have is another matter.

I suppose creationists get this challenge in part to show the fallaciousness of their position, but someone else who makes the "where did God come from challenge" should address this. Perhaps you could find an example from around the forum.

I am not able to understand how the origin of life has no berring on evolution and the discussion of evolution. Sure, if it has no berring it's a red herring, but it yes, then not (if you get my drift).

Is there a greater example of macro-evolution than a group of molecules, being of the correct figuration and type, being in the right place, becoming alive?

I do seem to see why it's avoided in an evolution discussion: it takes faith to believe and as I said, more faith than I have.

You are ignoring my analogies. You do not have to understand how life originated to understand evolution in the same way you do not have to know what happened during Abraham Lincoln's childhood to know what he accomplished as a congressman and President.

Also, you are incorrect. Accepting evolution does not require faith, it simply requires understanding what evolution is and an awareness of the vast evidence we have that it has occurred.




Do you accept that biological organisms typically have parents?

Do you accept that offspring are similar to but not identical to their parents?

Do you accept that our parents had parents and that they had parents, etc. etc.


Do you accept that the fossil evidence shows that life in the past was not at all like it is in the present? If not, you should. At one point, all life was marine. WE had lots and lots of different kinds of trilobits, fishes, etc. not not any flowering plant, no reptiles, no mammals.


You really have two choices. Accept that our ancestors were similar to species that we do find in the fossil record, or postulate (and this would be a rather big assumption) that somehow evidence of our ancestors that look like us has entirely disappeared or is as yet undiscovered past about 200,000 years ago.



Ask yourself with an open mind. How likely is it that humans existed throughout the entire history of life on earth when we only find evidence for human-like organisms in the last fraction of a percent of that history?? If we find fossils of humans from 200,000 years ago, why would we not find them 2 million, or 200 million years ago if they existed back then?


Consider this especially along with the fact that we do find lots of evidence of other types of beings from 2 million or 200 million years ago. From 200 million years ago, we find lots of dinosaurs. But, no dinosaurs earlier than 65 million years ago. Why?


Again, you have two choices.

A) Somehow, evidence of humans disappeared from the era when dinosaurs ruled, and dinosaurs disappeared from earlier records for some unknown reason OR

B) Our ancestors from the time of the dinosaurs were not at all like us.


If by "faith" you mean taking a position without basing it on any evidence, A takes a lot more faith than B.

[Autodidact]

O.K. dokimas, rather than "macro-evolution," how about if we use the term "Theory of Evolution," which I'm guessing might actually be what you mean. By that I mean the large concept, including:
(1) New species come from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection.
(2) This accounts for all the new species we observe on earth.
(3) Therefore, all living things on earth are descendants of a single common ancestor.

O.K.? Can we talk about that?

[Goat]

Your observation is correct. If they are controled experiment then the best conclusion is that intelligence is involved in these processes taking less faith to believe in God than in atheistic evolution, IMO.

So, these observations, that are in the wild, aren't acceptable because they are in the wild, and therefore not 'controlled', and a controlled experiment is 'evidence that intelligence is involved ' (never mind it is just observation of separation over time)'

In other words, no evidence, no matter how complete, would be satisfactory to you, because you have faith in God.

Once again I must apologized for being confusing.

I said nothing about observations in the wild. I only asked about the ones you sighted by asking if they were controlled experiments. If they were observations 'in the wild' then I would understand better your point. If the observations were part of a controlled experiment, then they'd better point to the need of a Creator than creatorless natural evolution.

The ones I chose to relay were not 'controlled' but in the wild. I have further examples that are observations in the lab .

[Critical_Thinker]

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Hi nygreenguy. That you for your reply. Regarding your comment “The giraffe increasing its neck length is only an expansion of its trait range and this is a result of the giraffe being able to increase its blood flow. Both of these are relative minor modifications.�

You appear to be saying that it was a simple matter for the giraffe to have expanded its trait range to allow the giraffe to be able to increase its blood flow, but in the natural world, how could this have happened?

Actually, not only did the increased neck length require increased blood flow, it also needed a mechanism to decrease the blood flow when the giraffe bends its head down when it wants to pick up something from the ground. If the blood continued to flow at the same rate as it does when the head is held high, then most likely the giraffe’s brain would receive an excessive amount of blood and might suffer from a brain hemorrhage.

It is my understanding that the giraffe’s neck is made in such a manner to accommodate both sudden moves of the head either up or down. I believe that it would have been a major problem that needed to be overcome. It may seem simple after the fact, but I believe it was a major problem while the giraffe’s neck was in the process of getting longer and longer.
---

See Darwin himself answered this question long ago.

Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

From talkorigins.org

The mechanisms for blood flow in a giraffe are valves (common), the rete mirabile are in all even toed ungulates, and increasing the size of the hear is also not a difficult task. The rete mirabile cluster of arteries and veins controls the pressure as the head goes down and the valves control blood when the head goes up.

I explained your complaints about this several times. It was co-evolution. We didnt have an explosion of one trait and then later another. These things developed gradually, together.

If this analysis is accurate, then it is doubtful that any convincing evidence currently exists to justify that dinosaur reptiles evolved into birds, at least not reptile scales to bird feathers. Do you know of any of fossil evidence that could indicate that reptilian scales evolved into bird feathers?

http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwz ... 347399.pdf
(watch all 5)
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/687.full
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... immer-text

I have read those who doubt that a reptile evolved into a bird question what use a mutated hand would have to a creature while it is in the process of evolving into a wing. Most likely, if the mutated hand were in fact useless or even detrimental, the creature would not have been able to continue.

Argument to incredulity. Simply because you do not understand the mechanism, does not mean it didnt/couldnt happen.

If the wing evolved, it would have had to develop through many ‘small’ mutations in a specific order and timing, assuming that a reptile with arms or legs evolved into a bird. The difficulty would be that these small mutations are not as small as they might appear. Even with billions of years of random mutational change, the probability of these small, neutral mutations remaining, is minimal.

Evidence for this claim?

As the same type of creature continues to produce offspring, the new small mutations would not be dominant, and would therefore not appear in every new offspring, which in turn may gradually be eliminated altogether as the species evolves. Even if a new organ all of a sudden appeared in a creature, if it were not proven to be beneficial, it would be a disadvantage to the creature and would subsequently lead to its elimination by natural selection.

Ok, you got the trait ELIMINATION part of natural selection down, but what about the part where it KEEPS traits?

There are also other features that are different between a reptile and a bird. As previously mentioned, reptiles are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded. Reptile lungs are different than bird lungs. The lungs of reptiles consist of millions of tiny air sacs; whereas, bird’s lungs have tubes. Most reptiles have a three-chambered heart while birds have a four-chambered heart, as most mammals do.

Well, lets start with some interesting similarities between birds and reptiles:
1) Skulls hings on a single condyle
2)Lower jaw is made of several bones
3)Single middle ear bone
4)Pneumatic bones
5)Scales on legs
6)Lack of skin glands
7)Egg laying
8)Nucleated red blood cells
9)Ankle joint is intertarsal (bends foreward)
10)Uncinate process - overlapping tabs in the ribs
11) embryonic development similarities

Also, I never said feathers evolved from scales. I said they were modified from the skin (epidermal modifications). THIS JUST MEANS THEY ARE SKIN ORGANS THAT FORM BY CONTROLLED PROLIFERATION OF CELLS IN THE EPIDERMIS OR OUTER SKIN LAYER, THAT PRODUCES THE KERATIN PROTEINS THAT FORM FEATHERS.
(sorry, caps lock)


So I listed similarities and you listed differences. Now, what can explain BOTH?

Well, if we look at the fossil record we see an increase in the assymetry of the feathers (leading to flight feathers), a decrease in tail size, increased size of the pectoral girdle and keel, decreased teeth, and the list goes on and on. We see an obvious transition of all the things that make birds different from dinosaurs in the fossil records, although many argue that birds really are just "glorified" dinosaurs.

For these changes to have developed naturally, it appears that many small, minute, possibly life threatening, changes would have needed to have occurred for a reptile to have evolved into a bird, even if these changes occurred over millions of years. I have not read a good explanation of how these changes could have occurred. Do you know of any explanations of how these changes might have taken place?

End

Look in the primary literature.

v----------------------- 12/31/2011 post by Critical_Thinker ------------------------v
Hi nygreenguy,

You provided some good information. Thanks. The “Feather Evolution� YouTube video ( that you suggested mentions that the older theory (that as reptile scales grew longer and longer the scales eventually evolved into feathers) has been replaced with a new theory that feathers did not develop from scales but rather from the skin of reptiles. Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe that feathers evolved from scales. We both agree that most likely bird feathers did not develop from reptile scales.

The youTube “Feather Evolution� video mentions that since fossil discoveries in China with loose downy-like feathers, it has been hypothesized how tubes could have grown out of the skin of dinosaurs, and as it grew longer and longer, it began developing hollow tubes, then barbules, which developed into barbs, then eventually developing into full feathers.

This is very interesting as a possible explanation how the bird feather could have been developed. The video discussed which genes in chickens are utilized for bird-like feathers with barbs and barbules to develop, but it was not discussed how feathers with barbs and barbules could have actually evolved from loose downy-like feathers. I still have not read or heard a convincing hypothesis that describes how bird feathers with barbs and barbules could have developed.

Could a gene (or genes) have been mutated or possibly turned on or off for bird-like feathers with barbs and barbules to have developed from loose downy-like feathers?

The youTube “Feather Evolution� video mentioned that reptiles may have developed muscles and the ability to fly by grabbing prey by raising it up to their mouths and then eating the prey (“pull and grab�), thus, causing their muscles to strengthen, which eventually enabled these reptiles to fly. Wouldn’t this be considered Lamarckianism, that is, by the use of parts of the body that would or could lead to an improvement that is passed onto its offspring? We both agree that the use and disuse of parts does not lead to a change in an offspring. It is doubtful that the “pull and grab� movements of some dinosaurs could have prepared future creatures to develop the ability to fly, as pulling and grabbing is not exactly the same as flying.

The dinosaur fossil descriptions in the “The Origin and Early Evolution of Feathers: Insights From Recent Paleontological and Neontological Data� (http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwz ... 347399.pdf) report you suggested was very informative. The discussion on page 314 indicates that the Psittacocaursus specimen “has both scaly and thick filamentous integumentary structure.� It was also mentioned that Psittacocaursus specimen “probably [had] tubular monofilamentous integumentary appendages along the tail...� A “filamentous integumentary structure� most likely refers to: a very slender thread or fiber that is a natural outer covering of the body.
Regarding Sinosauropteryx (one of the oldest known feathered dinosaurs), the report stated: “Although filamentous feathers Sinosauropteryx are likely to be branched structures, with relatively short quills and long, filamentous barbs, it is difficult to isolate a single feather to confirm the branching structure… It is questionable that the somewhat scalloped distribution pattern of filaments along the tail is resulted in by a frill nature of these dark impressions, but it is interesting that such a pattern appears in several specimens.�

The description may be referring to fibrous material that is in the process of developing into feathers, but they do not appear to be very definitive or conclusive. If they later prove to be accurate, it will be very interesting. Unfortunately, fossils do not provide as much information as one would prefer. I do not like to form opinions and conclusions based on incomplete evidence.

I believe that it may be possible that some creatures had scale bodies or just skin bodies, that some may have had hairy bodies or downy-feathered bodies, while other creatures may have had actual feathers and that one did not evolve from the other.

Was the filamentous feathers, long, thin feathers, early feathers, or long hairs?

How could these filamentous fibers gradually have developed into feathers with barbs and barbules? It is difficult to determine exactly what the covering was by merely examining a fossil.

“The Origin and Early Evolution of Feathers…� mentions on page 323 that it is not known for sure whether follicles or barb-ridges appeared first or whether they appeared at the same time, which is vital in understanding the origin of birds. If this is uncertain, then I suppose that no conclusive explanation of how the feather developed can be made.

Do you know of any specimen that has a partly formed feather that would demonstrate conclusively how feathers with barbs and barbules could have evolved from these filamentous structures?

Do you know if dinosaurs with the downy-like feathers previously had scales that were eventually lost in subsequent generations or do you know if these dinosaurs might have just had plain skin before developing the loose downy-like feathers?
What could have caused barbules to develop in such a way so that they eventually became interconnected, with barbules within barbs?

How could these barbs and barbules have become interconnected like Venetian blinds, as precisely needed for flight?

Although not mentioned in any of the literature you suggested, wind could not have been the cause of how barbs and barbules could have developed, otherwise I believe this would be another example of Lamarckianism, where a change that occurs in a creature by the effects of movement could be passed on to its offspring. Could the cause have been mutations or perhaps genes that were either turned on or off?

A different interpretation of the fossil evidence than the one described above suggests that Sinosauropteryx does not have any structures that resemble bird feathers. The filamentous feathers that are described for Sinosauropteryx and similar fossils are filamentous, interlaced structures, often referred to as dino-fuzz. Many now believe that these are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin.

I read elsewhere that even though fossils do not normally preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a Sinosauropteryx fossil has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had a lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile, a reptile —not a bird. Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver; as seen in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). (Ham, K. General Editor. 2006. The New Answers Book. Inc., Green Forest (AR): Master Books. pp. 300-303) I know that some believe that crocodiles are the closest living reptiles to birds, however, if crocodiles have different lungs than birds, it is doubtful how birds could have evolved from reptiles. Would you comment on this?

I found some interesting information regarding fossils and feathers, however, I am not sure of its validity:
“The fossilized structures referred to as dinosaur feathers were shown by Theagarten (Solly) Lingham-Soliar, a paleontologist from Durban-Westville University in South Africa to be nothing more than decayed connective tissue. Professor Lingham-Soliar performed an experiment by burying a dolphin in river mud, semi-permeable to air for a year. The reason a dolphin was selected was that its flesh is easy to analyze. At the end of this period, the professor examined the dolphin's bunches of collagen—which constitutes connective tissue in the bodies of most living things— under a microscope. According to him, the decayed collagen in the dolphin's body bore "a striking resemblance to feathers."1 The German magazine Naturwissenschaften commented that: "The findings throw serious doubt on the virtually complete reliance on visual image by supporters of the feathered dinosaur thesis and emphasize the need for more rigorous methods of identification using modern feathers as a frame of reference."2 With this finding, it emerged that even a dolphin could leave behind traces of apparent feathers. This once again showed that there are no grounds for regarding extinct dinosaurs with "feathers" as proto-birds. 1. Stephen Strauss, "Buried dolphin corpse serves science," 11 November 2003;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... TPScience/
2. Ibid.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science ... rds_07.php

Would you care to comment on this?

Archaeopteryx existed 150 mya, whereas Sinosauropteryx existed 124 mya. If this is true, then Archaeopteryx could not have evolved from Sinosauropteryx, as some sources suggest. Protarchaeoptery and caudipteryx both existed 124.6 mya, Velociraptor existed 75-71 mya, and Rahonaus existed 70 mya.

Sinornithosaurus millenii, another dinosaur, thought to have been related to Archaeopteryx, dates from about 124 to 125 million years ago (mya), but due to its more recent date, obviously could not have been the dinosaur from which Archaeopteryx evolved from.

These fossils appear in various bird evolution charts as having some type of relationship to Archaeopteryx, however, they all appear too late in the fossil record to be ancestors to Archaeopteryx (150 mya) or modern birds.

Epidexipteryx hui (154 mya) does not have the wing feathers that would indicate that it had feathers that were precursors to Archaeopteryx bird-like feathers.

Microraptor (120 mya) is thought by some to have lost their hind-wings that allowed them to revert to walking and perching, as their ancestors walked. If this is true, then Microraptor would have been a fast runner, which may have helped it to glide. Microraptor, however, could not have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx as some sources suggest because Archaeopteryx existed 150 mya, whereas Microraptor existed only 120 mya.

Anchiornis huxleyi (160 – 155 mya) has long hind-legs that would have caused it to be a good runner, however, it has feathers on its feet and toes that would have gotten in the way, not allowing it to run and glide. Possibly Anchiornis climbed up trees or rocks and then jumped off in order to glide. Having four wings would have been an advantage for gliding but not for powered, flapping flight. Its symmetric, rounded small feathers most likely would not be very effective for gliding. Since there are existing birds, such as the crested helmet pigeon (cock bird), that have wings (feathers) on their feet, perhaps Anchiornis may be related to these types of pigeons.

Even if Anchiornis were a good runner and glider, it would still not have been close to becoming a flyer. For a reptile to obtain the ability to fly would require overcoming a few obstacles, even if a creature had the ability to glide. Gliding involves holding wings steady to cause resistance to downwards movement through the air whereas true flying involves continual flapping of the wings. Gliding involves using wings as a moving parachute by directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Flying requires flapping wings to mainly direct air backwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generates lift. Another trait that needs to development is the musculature and skeletal frame, also required for powered flight. In addition to having the ability to flap wings in a certain way for flight, flapping flight requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight.

Anchiornis, being a reptile, most likely did not have a breathing system necessary for flight as birds have (lungs are not usually preserved in fossils). A highly movable hind-limb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs. With these issues in mind, it is doubtful whether Anchiornis could have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx or a modern bird.
Main source: http://creation.com/anchiornis-huxleyi- ... hered-dino

A journal I read that was listed from your Google search “bird wing evolution� was “An Early Cretaceous bird from Spain and its implications for the evolution of avian flight� discussed the Eoalulavis hoyasi fossil from Spain. This document mentions that Eoalulavis hoyasi existed 115 million year ago and provides evidence for the oldest known alula (bastard wings). It is too recent to have evolved into Archaeopteryx.

“The alula… acts as a slot on the medial leading edge of the wing, serves to delay stall and to allow the wing to continue to generate lift even at very high angles of attack. The alula lifts automatically when pressure above the wings drops, and in most birds is used in very slow flight, take off and landing.�

“The feathers on the Eoalulavis hoyasi wing contain a small bunch of feathers attached to the "finger". When the bird wishes to slow down or descend to earth, it decreases the angle of the wing to the horizon. This allows air to flow over the wing's top surface and to stop without falling.�

This indicates that 120 million years ago there were birds that were very similar to modern birds.

What do you suppose could have caused alula to appear on the ends of the wings of Eoalulavis hoyasi and modern birds? I do not believe alula appear on the wings of Archaeopteryx.

One of the journals listed from your Google search “bird wing evolution,�
“Developmental Basis of Limb Evolution,� (page 842) stated: “The most bird-like dinosaurs post date Archaeopteryx by tens of millions of years. Dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ are unconvincing while much [of] the most convincing fossil feathers are found in a lizard-like thecodont [“socket-toothed� reptile that possibility pre-dated dinosaurs], Longisquama [an extinct lizard-like reptile known only from one poorly preserved and incomplete fossil] and these predate Archaeopteryx, thus raising the possibility of thecodont ancestry.�

Do you see this comment as being a change in the usual theory of how bird feathers and birds evolved or is it simply suggesting an alternate beginning point?

So far, my only discussion was now modern bird feathers could have evolved. I would also like to mention that the bone structure of a reptile’s forelimb also needed to change to a bird-like wing structure as well for a reptile to be able to fly. Even though the same number of digits (5) may appear in to reptiles and bird wings, they do not have the same structure or shape. As far as I know, no fossil evidence has been discovered that indicates how wing bones developed from reptile forelimbs to bird wings.

I know of no evidence whereby any transitional fossils have been discovered. Some say that transitional fossils have not been found because there would not have been very many transitional creatures in existence and that since fossilization is rare, no transitional fossils are expected to be found. I would think, however, that if every creature in existence evolved from a different creature, some transitional fossils should be found. The mammal-like reptile fossils are debatable.

I realize that evolution works by very small, seemingly insignificant changes, however, I would expect that at least some creatures in the process of evolving would have been found. I do not believe in Punctutated Equilibrium.

Of all the reptile fossils recently unearthed in China, all the creatures appear to be perfectly formed. Even Archaeopteryx appears to be a perfectly formed creature. No fossils have yet been unearthed (as far as I know) that illustrates how Archaeopteryx developed from a true reptile without wings or how Archaeopteryx become more and more bird-like (loosing its teeth, claws, tailbone, and other reptilian traits).

What is needed for me to believe the theory that birds evolved from reptiles is a series of fossils leading from a reptile to a bird. I realize that not fossils from every stage in development most likely could be found, I am hoping for a least some evidence that supports this. So far, only different types of reptiles have been utilized to support the theory that birds evolved from reptiles but none seem to be closely related.

---
When I presented some questions as to how the giraffe’s neck could have developed through many small mutations that may or may not appear in every new offspring (due to apparently random genes taken from its father and mother – no blending of traits) and how if a new trait could have been eliminated if it proved to be detrimental, especially during its early stages of its development, you responded by asking: “what about the part where it KEEPS traits?�

I had previously established that I agree that some changes do occur in species that sometimes may lead to a new species. I agree that some new traits are kept, otherwise no change could have ever occurred in any living thing. My discussion was regarding those traits, such as a reptilian hand or forelimb that was in the process of evolving into a wing, and the possibilities of how a creature in the midst of developing a new trait could have survived. As in the case of a reptile’s arm evolving into a wing, the creature would eventually not be able to use the limb (arm or leg) as it previously did (if it was used for anything) since the partly formed wing would not have been developed enough for flight. I suppose that you would agree that this sometimes could occur that a creature with a deformed hand (or any other limb or organ) would not be able to survive.

My view is that unless a mutation resulted in some useful function or perhaps a neutral function, such as in the case where a huge dinosaur had extremely small arms and legs for its body size, it would cause the deformed creature to be eliminated. In the example of a dinosaur hand developing into a bird wing, for this to have occurred by mutation and natural selection, the creature obviously continued to exist in spite of this seemingly useless (half-hand/half-wing) trait. I realize that some believe that a deformed half-hand/half-wing might have been useful in keeping the creature warm or perhaps the deformed half-hand/half-wing might have been used to fend off would be predators. I believe that the small arms of the theropod saurischian dinosaur that is supposed to have evolved into a modern bird may have been useful for some purpose that may never be known since all of these dinosaurs became extinct and their actual movements cannot be studied.

It is doubtful to me that co-evolution, that is, more than one type of evolution could be conducted simultaneously on one type of creature, that would have resulted in a positive gain, especially how you are applying the concept to a single creature rather than as it is usually applied to a creature evolving that the same time as another complementary organism evolved, such as a plant.

TheFreeDictionary.com specifies co-evolution as: “The evolution of two or more species that interact closely with one another, with each species adapting to changes in the other.� (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coevolution)

Another definition of co-evolution is: “a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another� (http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/2 ... ution.HTML).

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines co-evolution as: “the process of reciprocal evolutionary change that occurs between pairs of species or among groups of species as they interact with one another.� (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... oevolution)

One source (http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/ ... ution.html) uses the evolution of the horse and grass leaves as an example of co-evolution: “Horses once browsed soft leafy bushes, when they first evolved around 60 Ma. But [as] the Earth's climate cooled, and [then] woodland[s] gave way to open grassland with scattered trees. Now some horses began to graze in open country, and that changed everything. The grasses responded to grazing by evolving little silica pieces in their leaves (phytoliths) that were essentially jagged little grains of sand. Over time, they wore away the dentine of the horse teeth. Once their teeth wore down, they could no longer eat. So the horses with more enamel and longer teeth survived better, and this co-evolution of phytoliths and horse teeth continued for millions of years, drastically altering horse morphology as they continued this "arms race" against the grasses. As horses evolved larger, longer teeth with more enamel, they had to have bigger jaws to place the teeth in, and larger muscles for chewing. The horse face grew longer and stronger. Also, the horses out in the plain could not hide easily, so the taller, faster ones survived and reproduced better than the shorter, slower ones. The ‘evolution of the horse’ involved a many-million year increase in size, in running ability, and in its chewing capacity.� http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/ ... ution.html)

The article above does not specifically mention that the horse grew longer teeth as a result of a need, however, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe horses deliberately grew longer teeth with more enamel in order to survive. Changes (new traits) could remain in a creature if the new trait proved to be advantageous and then natural selection would allow the trait to continue. What would have happened if the horses’ teeth continued to grow longer and longer? What caused the teeth to stop growing?

I read elsewhere that the fossil record does not show a gradual progression of the horse. Horses did not evolve as mutations gradually changed its traits. Instead, scientists have found genetic information in horses that may have been hidden in early horses that were later activated (expressed) in modern horses. This genetic information may have controlling or regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off.’ That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature. This would enable very rapid changes. It is possible that the body size, including toe size, and tooth shape of horses, were controlled by regulatory genes. Scientists have found that a single protein, called BMP-4, prevents the gene that causes molars (back grinding teeth) to form, so incisors (cutting teeth) can grow instead. Without this protein no incisors will grow. (http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/c ... iew/55/65/ and http://www.equest4truth.com/eo_nonevolution.html).

Would you let me know if you believe this concept has any validity?

I read the excerpts from the book, “Taking Wings – Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight� (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... on&f=false) you suggested in you Google search “bird wing evolution.� Regarding archaeopteryx (ancient wing), this creature is a mixture of both reptilian and avian features. It has been established that archaeopteryx existed approximately 150 mya. Some sources indicate that archaeopteryx was not able to fly (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... uldnt-fly/), however, other sources indicate that this creature did fly or was at least able to glide (http://www.jurassictimes.com/archaeopteryx and http://archeopteryx.info/paleobiology.html). If archaeopteryx was able to fly, then it must be assumed that it also had a fully avian heart, circulatory and respiratory system to supply the vastly increased demand for oxygen that occurs during powered flight. If this is true, then would archaeopteryx be considered more bird-like than reptile-like?

Some people view archaeopteryx as being a bird with claws, teeth and a bony tail, while others view archaeopteryx as being a reptile with wings and feathers.
Reptiles have a 3-chamber heart while birds and mammals have a 4-chamber heart. Bird lungs are completely different than a reptile lung. I have never read any explanation as to how a reptile heart and lungs could have changed to a bird heart and lung. I believe that it would be very difficult for a 3-chamber heart to gradually evolve into a 4-chamber heart. I believe that it would also be near impossible for a reptile type lung to develop into a bird type lung.

I also have doubts about how a reptile could have evolved into a mammal, especially when considering that reptiles lay eggs and mammals give live births.

How could a reptile that lays eggs then gradually change into a creature that carries its young inside its body until the offspring is born?

Because mutations do not involve any intelligence, that is, being unguided, it does not steadily obtain an improvement that works towards a goal (natural selection weeds out the unfit or less fit), it is difficult to comprehend how a reptile could have eventually, gradually, have evolved into a mammal, even with millions of years of evolution. Since mutations are non-directional and natural selection only selects those creatures that are best fit to survive, it is doubtful to me how this could have been accomplished by natural means.

Mammals have a number of unique features which are not found in any other group of organisms. They include:
1) a hairy covering, each hair being a complex structure consisting of keratinized cuticle, a cortex and a central medulla
2) mammary glands exhibiting alveoli surrounded by a network of myoepithelial cells responsive to the hormone oxytocin producing milk, a nutritious secretion containing fat globules and sugars
3) specialized sweat glands in the skin
4) a four-chambered heart with left ventricle delivering aerated blood to the aorta
5) unique kidney shaped kidneys with a urinary tract filtering unit that removes waste matter from the blood and function to generate urine
6) a large cerebral cortex with distinctive six layers of cells. The cerebral cortex is a complex outgrowth of neural tissue which forms the outer layer of the brain, which is the seat of all the higher mental functions and complex behavior patterns that is characteristic of mammals
7) a diaphragm, a special muscle used by mammals for respiration
8) three highly specialized ear ossicles consisting of a mallus, incus and stapes conducting vibrations across the middle ear. (I am aware that there is a theory as to how a reptilian ear/jaw could have evolved into a mammalian ear/jaw, however, it is debatable how this could have actually occurred by mutations and natural selection, especially when considering point #9.)
9) the organ of corti, a specialized organ for reception and analysis of sound

Each of the 9 characteristics listed above are unique to only mammals (as far as I know) and essentially are in the same form.

Any transition from a reptile to a mammal would require the development of completely new organ systems. Transforming the reproductive system, for example, is not just a question of changing where the eggs grow (whether inside or outside of the mother). It also requires the development of completely new organs like the placenta and mammary glands.

It is doubtful whether natural selection and random mutations have the ability to produce such changes. Many necessary anatomical changes would have to take place in a coordinated fashion. Transforming a reptile to a mammal requires the step-by-step conversion of many, separate physiological systems. It requires a coordinated change in the respiratory, circulatory, and reproductive systems, plus other changes as well. All of the intermediate organ systems must work, and in many cases, they must work together. Since vital organs are vital to the survival of an animal, every temporary loss of an organ could or would most likely result in the death of the transitional animal forms.

How do you suppose a creature could have survived, for example, if its heart were slowing evolving into a different type of heart?

Any transition of a reptile from a three-chambered heart to a mammal four-chambered heart requires a series of coordinated physiological and anatomical changes. They include:
1) lengthening and attaching the existing septum to create a new, separate ventricle chamber.
2) replacing the forked abdominal aorta and two aortic arches with a single aorta.
3) rerouting the pulmonary arteries and veins.
4) making various secondary structural changes to the walls and valves between chambers.

Considering the uniqueness of the avian lung, respiratory system, the air sac system and uniquely division of the body cavity into several compressible compartments, it is difficult to comprehend how a bird could have evolved from a reptile. It is understood that some reptiles also have air sacs, the structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique to birds.

No lung in any other vertebrate species (reptile or mammal) is known to be anything like the avian system. How such a very different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate lung is very difficult to conceive, especially when the respiratory system functioning is critical to the life of the creature (a new born) and any slightest malfunction would lead to certain death within minutes of attempting to breathe with a respiratory system that is in the process of developing into a different system. Neither mutations nor natural selection works toward any goal, not even an improved respiratory system, so any mutations would cause an uncertain change. At some point during the change the respiratory system would no longer be functional or function as needed to survive. Multiple changes may not occur in a new born, but a new born might be born with a modified system that is either non-functional or not sufficient to sustain life. If the parent(s) with the latest change were not able to have offspring that survived, the mutation would not continue in the species.

Some may theorize that avian lungs could have developed before reptiles began to fly or possibly during the same time when wings with feathers were developing, but this is doubtful. This concept does not seem plausible because the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system (which permeates it) and the air sac system (which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply) are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.

The unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. First, the avian lung is fixed to the body wall and because of this cannot expand in volume. Second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as it does in all other vertebrates (reptiles and mammals) after birth. In birds, aeration of the lungs must occur gradually and starts three to four days before hatching with a filling of the main bronchi, air sacs and parabronchi with air.

Only after the main air ducts are already filled with air does the final development of the lungs, and particularly the growth of the air capillary network, take place. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species (reptiles and mammals). As the air capillaries grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled either with air or fluid, which is later absorbed into the blood capillaries. Explaining how such an intricate and highly specialized system of correlated adaptations could have been achieved gradually through perfectly functional intermediates seems impossible.

I asked previously how a reptile lung could have evolved into a bird lung, however you did not provide an explanation of how this might have been accomplished. How do you believe a reptile lung could have gradually developed into a bird type lung?

I am also not convinced that an amphibian could have evolved into a reptile, especially with the difficulty of how an amphibian egg could evolve into a reptilian egg.

For this transition to have occurred (an amphibian egg evolving into a reptilian egg), at least eight quite different changes needed to be combined to make the reptilian type amniotic egg possible. These changes include:
(1) The formation of a tough impermeable shell;
(2) The formation of the gelatinous egg white (albumen) and the secretion of a special acid to yield its water;
(3) The excretion of nitrogenous waste in the form of water insoluble uric acid;
(4) The formation of the amniotic cavity in which the embryo floats. This is surrounded by the amniotic membrane which is formed by an outgrowth of mesodermal tissue. Neither the amniotic cavity nor the membrane which surrounds it has anything similar in any amphibian;
(5) The formation of the allantois from the future floor of the hind gut as a container for waste products and later to serve the function of a respiratory organ;
(6) The development of a tooth or caruncle (fleshly outgrowth on the heads of certain birds) which the developed embryo can utilize to break out of the egg;
(7) A quantity of yolk sufficient for the needs of the embryo until it is hatched;
(8) Changes in the urogenital system of the female permitting fertilization of the egg before the hardening of the shell.

The problem of the origin of the amniotic system is even more questionable considering that the basic problem is that amphibian eggs need water, whereas reptilian eggs have amniotic fluid, which eliminates their need for water. Some amphibian eggs have a tough gelatinous skin that will stand a certain degree of drought, while others are live bearing. Certain amphibians are therefore quite independent of water for reproduction. How the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian type is also questionable.

How do you suppose the amphibian egg system could have evolved into the reptile egg system?

These are the main reasons why I do not believe an amphibian evolved into a reptile or that a reptile evolved into a bird or a mammal.

^----------------------- 12/31/2011 post by Critical_Thinker ------------------------^

[Critical_Thinker]

Luckily though, evolution works through generations� to my comment regarding limitations to the amount of mutations a genome could cause debilitating results, I was referring to multiple offspring during many generations. I read that if hox genes are experimentally mutated that no beneficial organisms have resulted.[/quote] Where did you read this? What is a "beneficial organism?"

This is because living organisms depend on multiple systems and genes. A single hox gene affects more than one organism. (Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (2007) p. 109).

How does a single Hox gene affect more than one organism?

Critical_Thinker 1/1/2012 wrote:
I was mistaken. I should have said that Hox genes control more than one gene, not more than one organism. I may have been thinking of an organelle. I believe I was thinking of Hox genes controlling multiple genes. That is, Hox genes are considered master regulators that turn other genes in the cell on and off during the embryonic developmental process. Hox genes determine when other genes in the cell will transmit their instructions for building proteins. Since hox genes affect so many genes and systems, it seems unlikely that they could be mutated without damaging the way some of the genes are switched ‘on’ or ‘off’. Hox genes are so influential, no experimental mutations so far (as of 2007) in hox genes have proven helpful to the organism. Do you know if any other research has been conducted that disproves this conclusion?

Pierre-Paul Grasse has stated that through his research, he concluded that mutations in successive generations do not result in any extent of change. He states that genes only permit very limited changes in a species.

Unfortunately, Professor Grasse, who passed away in 1985, turned out to be wrong on that point. He was perhaps the last of the Lamarckists, an hypothesis which you have stated in this thread is mistaken.

Critical_Thinker 1/1/2012 wrote:
Do you know of any journals or have conducted your own experiments that have disproven Professor Grasses' claims?

Mutations may result in a change within a species, or occasionally result in a new species, however, despite extensive attempts by researchers, mutations do not appear to be able to produce fully new life forms.

What is the difference between a new species and a new life form?

Critical_Thinker 1/1/2012 wrote:
I was thinking that a new species may have a similar appearance to its ancestors but not be able to interbreed and that a new life form would be a creature whose traits, basic body plan and physical appearance does not reflect its ancestors, in addition to not being able to interbreed with its ancestors.

Do you know if any other research has disproved this?

Yes, the research that you quoted yourself proved Dr. Grasse to be wrong.[/quote]

Critical_Thinker 1/1/2012 wrote:
I believe you are referring to "Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" (2007) p. 109." that I cited previously. I do not see anything mentioned in this text that disproves Grasses' claims. Do you have any specific page and text in mind? Would you provide the page and perhaps quote the text that you are referring to?

Critical_Thinker 1/1/2012 wrote:
Do you know of any journals or have done any experiments that disproves Professor Grasses’ claim? Perhaps you may know of fruit fly experiments that were conducted where a fruit fly had offspring that had some type of difference, other than perhaps a different color or any extra leg or wing? I know Jerry Coyne conducted many experiments on fruit flies, but I am not aware of any offspring that did not resemble a fruit fly.

[Autodidact]

Critical:

It would be very helpful if you would master the quote function. Would you like a lesson?

You yourself said that Lamarkism is not correct. Dr. Grasse advocated Lamarkism. Therefore, you yourself agree that Dr. Grasse was incorrect. Since we agree on this point, there is no need to argue it.

Finally, I do not understand what you are asking for. I suspect that like most people who do not accept ToE, you do not understand it. ToE predicts that we will never see new "life forms" as you describe them, arising from an existing population. ToE asserts that "saltation," (which is what you seem to be asking for) does not occur. Therefore, it has not been observed; it does not happen. If it did, ToE would be incorrect. Do you understand why, or do I need to explain it?