Evolution, Dinosaur to bird transitionary fossil discovered~

[Rust]

I respect the many works of those who seek 'truth' and have backgrounds that include math, physics, and biology. I also seek the truth.

I do not support those who are dogmatic and elitist such as yourself who probably have never actually taken an advanced mathematics course and yet claim to understand the origins of the universe. How typical.

The only masterful 'sleight-of-hand' is the huge amount of bullshit being called 'fact' by people such as yourself.

I'll add one more set of points then I'm done, since we've beat this to death. I'm sure you'll come back with tons of links that 'suggest' or 'indicate' things that while logical are merely more connections to microevolution.



Food for thought

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"

* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."

* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97

"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45


"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

Isn't this the *same* set of Creationist misquotes you posted before, and when I pointed it out, my post was deleted? Hardly worrth pointing out in any more detail that you're using misquotes if my response will just be deleted...

It's not like this is the *first* time you've used out-of-context quotes to support your pseudo-scientific claims, and I'm sadly sure it won't be the last. It's just as dishonest the first, second, or 100th time, though. And since I've already previously pointed out *in detail* to you how your quotes are taken out of context, it really does speak a lot about your integrity that you continue to rely on them.

Really, Creationists using misquotes is about the oldest play in their book. They simply don't seem to have a problem 'Lying for Jesus'.

--R.

[Rust]

Uh, Lyion, you're quoting stuff that, for the most part, is at LEAST 20 years old. The most recent stuff in there is almost a decade old. Think about how much science gets done in a YEAR, let alone a decade. You try and link a post with discussions of theories about stellar physics, say, or extra-solar planets that are 20 years old, and see how far you get in discussions with people doing the cutting-edge work here and now. I can't imagine it is ANY different for biology/paleontology.

Again, I stand by my assertion: You're pulling a Mindia here, in decrying anyone who doesn't support your position as being an "Evolutionary evangilist", and listening solely to people who already DO support your position, regardless of the evidence against you.

Yes, I've taken a shitload of higher physics and higher math. I must admit that Differential Equations and I didn't get along, but I passed it. I don't know what you majored in, but I was all but done with my coursework in the major towards the Astrophysics degree, so I suspect I have a fair bit more physics than you do. Going to insult my educational background as well, cause I'm with Rust on this.

-Arlos

I can claim a B.A.Sc. in Engineering Physics as well as an M.Sc. in Medical Biophysics for paper credentials. Not to mention over a decade studying evolutionary theory and the history and philosophy of science, among other topics, in my spare time. I have about 12 linear feet of books on my shelves dealing with evolution, paleobiology, and Creationism.

I'd like to see Lyion define 'real science', 'macroevolution' and 'true transitional fossil' so we can discuss his ideas (wince they clearly bear no relationship to the terms as paleontologists understand them), it would be interesting to see what someone clearly unfamiliar with basic concepts in the field comes up with.

--R.

[Lyion]

Evolutionary dogmists like you can continue to ignore the fact more things are punching huge holes in Macroevolution then ever before.

I predict in 20 years macroevolution will be debunked, and the fraud that is the correlation of micro and macroevolution will finally be mainstreamed.

The answer is in DNA and the real science you like to espouse, but clearly you just blindly follow to the beat of your anti religion drum

Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.

With the re-discovery of Mendel's genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creating new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.

The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly, experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene is likely to destroy functioning completely and is also extremely unlikely to enhance functioning, presented another serious problem for evolution. This problem was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for the complete transformation of a species, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.

With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species transformation totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[Lyion]

I'm amused that you are so 'religious' about proving science that is already mainstreamed to someone who has issues with it, due to things you, yourself should also be questioning. I have no doubt you get offended by 'Psuedoscience' and beliefs that most scientists do not wish to discuss and rightly question.

One thing you are spot on about is I do not have the time or inclination to study Evolution to the level you have done, Rust. I have no doubt you have delved much deeper than me. I solely learn Biology via my discussions with people I've worked with who have advanced degrees in it but do not use it, as well as internet surfing. Most hold identical views to you. I have no issues with those views and I can understand where they are coming from. Paleontology likewise holds little interest, although I find the subject fascinating.

I graduated from college a long time ago, and the majority of my time now is spent with philosophy or linguistics. I keep up with current affairs and I read about discoveries in science. My younger year passions were physics and it still is much dearer to me than evolution. I never claimed to be an expert, and I'll readily admit my understanding is based on my personal reading solely.

That said the proof is not there for me. When macroevolution becomes accepted by the majority of Americans and science has figured out the many outstanding issues, I'll accept it. However, while it is simply a good guess and is the best science has right now it is a very dodgy subject that I do not subscribe to.

I will continue to hold my beliefs that speciation is bollocks, due to the holes I've read up that have not been successfully refuted. I'll also respect the fact non religious people find Intelligent Design to be untrue since it is not scientifically based. It is indeed a faith based belief and not grounded deeply in modern science.

In a Judeo Christian culture though faith is important and will always be held above things that are dodgy, as it should be.

[Diekan]

Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

I stopped reading all the posts some time ago - but who ever said that is point blank wrong.

[Lyion]

That'd be here, Diek.

http://designeduniverse.com/articles/Ev ... ution.html

Not sure how reputable the site is, but it seemed to have some good info.

[Rust]

Evolutionary dogmists like you can continue to ignore the fact more things are punching huge holes in Macroevolution then ever before.

I predict in 20 years macroevolution will be debunked, and the fraud that is the correlation of micro and macroevolution will finally be mainstreamed.

Yeah, Creationists like you have been saying that for a long time now. "Soon evolution will be disproved..." I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think I found the site you lifted these unattributed quotes from...

The answer is in DNA and the real science you like to espouse, but clearly you just blindly follow to the beat of your anti religion drum

Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

For someone who claims to have studied mathematics, you evidently never looked at the mathematical models that describe how mutations can become fixed in a population. Either that or you're as bad at math as you are at science. Or both. Look up Hamilton or Kimura's work in population genetics for starters. If you had, you wouldn't have posted the above claim about fixation.

While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

So, did David Baltimore really say that entire quote? Or did he only say the last sentence?

While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.

With the re-discovery of Mendel's genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creating new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.

The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly, experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene is likely to destroy functioning completely and is also extremely unlikely to enhance functioning, presented another serious problem for evolution. This problem was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for the complete transformation of a species, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.

With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species transformation totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

The last longwinded quote seems to imply some kind of orthogenesis - 'directed evolution'. The writer seems to have a problem with the concept of the origin of new traits via mutation, and he includes some random mutterign about 'information'. By the end of the quote he's even invoking orthogenesis (directed evolution) which hasn't been taken seriously outside a few crackpots and mystics (like de Chardin) for decades.

Again, a good job lifting largely irrelevant pseudo-scientific meanderings off some web page written by someone with no evident study of evolution. Toss in a half-hearted misquote of David Baltimore for good measure.

--R.

[Diekan]

Lyion,

Here's a link to a very credible site:

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/info=inheritance/show/alltopics

I think you'll find it interesting.

As for actually "changing" an organism in the lab, that quote is 110% wrong. When I was in college taking a course called "Molecular Genetics" we did what that quote claimed could not be done, sort of. We cut the LUX operon from V. fischeri (a bacteria found in the gut of squid that cause them to "glow" as a form of camoflauge (sp)...). We cloned the gene and then inserted it in E. coli. The results? A glowing, more complex strain of E. coli. This was done as a under grad, so I don't for a single second believe that professional labs cannot conduct experiements on a much more detailed and grander scale.

Now, yes I know that what we didn't exactly exploit, or cause a "mutation," however, through the use of various types of radiation, drugs, chemicals, so on - science CAN force a non-letal mutation that will be passed down from generation to generation...

That quote alone causes me to discount any thing that site may claim.

[Narrock]

Macroevolution is a mere 'concept' with no scientific facts to support it.

[brinstar]

so is religion

owned

[Narrock]

I never claimed that religion was factual, and that it's all based on faith. Paying attention is your friend.

owned.

[Diabolik]

COLUMBUS, Ga. - Paleontologists have identified a new dinosaur species, an early relative of Tyrannosaurus rex that probably roamed what is now the Southeastern United States about 77 million years ago.



The scientists made the identification from hundreds of fossilized fragments collected mostly in Montgomery County, Ala., and southwestern Georgia.

They named the new dinosaur Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis, which means "the Appalachian lizard from Montgomery County." The 25-foot-long creature roamed the earth 10 million years before T. rex and was smaller and more primitive, with a narrower snout.

David R. Schwimmer of Columbus State University; Thomas Carr of Carthage College of Kenosha, Wis.; and Thomas Williamson of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science were credited with the discovery when the dinosaur's name was recognized by the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

"We've been finding teeth and odd bones from this animal for 20 years, and it's nice to finally have a name for it," Schwimmer said.

The researchers said Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis was buried in mud at the bottom of a shallow sea about 77.8 million years ago, after currents carried it away from shore.

LOL... it's Ross!

[Narrock]

LOL Ross Gellar

That's gotta suck to have your wife leave you for another woman.

[KILL]

I'd rather have my wife leave me for another woman than another man.

[Diabolik]

I'd rather have my wife leave me for another woman than another man.

I would find some way of getting in on that action.

[brinstar]

I never claimed that religion was factual, and that it's all based on faith. Paying attention is your friend.

owned.

then don't discount macroevolution on the grounds that it is "a mere 'concept' with no scientific facts to support it"

logic is your friend

[Narrock]

Dictionary.com is your friend, Alex. Enter "Macroevolution."

[brinstar]

ok on simpler terms

macroevolution = a mere concept with no scientific facts to support it

religion = a mere concept with no scientific facts to support it

do you understand the words i am typing here

drool if you comprehend me

post angsty indignance if you comprehend me

[Narrock]

I've always said that religion is faith based.

Also, reading this thread all over again from post number one... is very funny watching Rust scrape for excuses over and over again every time Lyion hands him his ass. I see Rust not knowing what to say, so he resorts to cutting & pasting of his biased and fictional propaganda resources. Same BS he tried to do with me in the religious threads.

I'm glad to see that your $30,000 worth of education has paid off such tremendous dividends, Rust.

<waiting for the typical "I know you are, but what am I" comments... guaranteed to be forthcoming...>

[KILL]

Dude, how many times did your mommy drop you on your head when you were a baby?

[Tikker]

I've always said that religion is faith based.

Also, reading this thread all over again from post number one... is very funny watching Rust scrape for excuses over and over again every time Lyion hands him his ass. I see Rust not knowing what to say, so he resorts to cutting & pasting of his biased and fictional propaganda resources. Same BS he tried to do with me in the religious threads.

I'm glad to see that your $30,000 worth of education has paid off such tremendous dividends, Rust.

<waiting for the typical "I know you are, but what am I" comments... guaranteed to be forthcoming...>

95% of Lyion's posts have been from the perspective of "God created it, therefore evolution isn't a fact"

It's retarded to even try to "debate" anything with closed minded religious zealots

[Lyion]

Bullshit.

My entire point has been Macro and Micro evolution are distinct and Macro is a stretch with many holes. We've gone through the same routine over and over again. Everytime Rust skirts the issue and goes over to a Usenet forum to post a lot of links without actually addressing what I've said. His links likewise are weak which is why there are so many holes punched into it.

While I do not like Mindia's approach, you are guilty of doing exactl;y what you are complaining about, Tikker. You are as much a zealout as Mindia.

[Tikker]

No I'm not


I'm willing to admit that I don't know the answer



Rust's links are only weak when you're looking at them from the perspective of a devout christian

You dismiss data because it's against what the church has taught you as the truth, therefore it can't be


In the 1st thread, you asked for transitional fossils

a new one is found, yet you blow it off as meaningless

there are scores of transitional fossils, but you and your church refuse to acknowledge them because it somehow makes your faith look bad


Look at the catchy little phrase you have

You're using it like a holy shield now, despite the fact that from evidence found over the last couple hundred years, the working theory for macro evolution has been formulated

And of course the theory for macro evolution is a theory that still has holes in it. all theories do. but those holes get smaller each time science advances and discovers new evidence

dismissing everything out of hand, because it doesn't fit with your world view is very small minded

[Lyion]

I don't dismiss anything. I accept many things my faith doesn't agree with. Catholicism has no issues with Evolution, ya know?

I'm willing to look at all evidence and consider truth. So is Catholicism. The problem here is every 'proof' that is suggested for Macroevolution is simply microevolution. Thus to me I do not subscribe to it. If you are 'honest', than neither would you.

The holes for macroevolution get bigger, not smaller and there is more fragmentation in regards to it.
It is a simple fact that macroevolution has never been seen or proven valid.

Anyways, this is being discussed by people who have more of an interest in it.
My simple point has nothing to do with anything except 'Macroevolution' being dodgy and distinct from microevolution. That is all I've said in multiple threads.

[Narrock]

No I'm not


I'm willing to admit that I don't know the answer



Rust's links are only weak when you're looking at them from the perspective of a devout christian

You dismiss data because it's against what the church has taught you as the truth, therefore it can't be


In the 1st thread, you asked for transitional fossils

a new one is found, yet you blow it off as meaningless

there are scores of transitional fossils, but you and your church refuse to acknowledge them because it somehow makes your faith look bad


Look at the catchy little phrase you have

You're using it like a holy shield now, despite the fact that from evidence found over the last couple hundred years, the working theory for macro evolution has been formulated

And of course the theory for macro evolution is a theory that still has holes in it. all theories do. but those holes get smaller each time science advances and discovers new evidence

dismissing everything out of hand, because it doesn't fit with your world view is very small minded

There have not been any transitional fossils found. It's just another theory that you're grasping on for dear life to try to prove that religion is false. Sorry Tik, but you lost this one too.