I was actually looking at stick's post and mistook it for yours. Was yours the link you provided? Its that what you are wanting refuted?
The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, **** habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.
Shortened for spams sake. Most of your beliefs are flawed. Evolution isn't random coin flipping. Its trial and error. If a larger bone structure works out for the species and is used it stays. If the thick body hair is no longer needed due to warmer climate then it is scrapped. Now it is nowheres close to anything like that really, no decision maker is in place other than more survivability due to the new mutation, and it is a slow process. Sure we may find an ape skeleton, see that it has shorter legs and longer arms then most humans and we say, oh ape, it uses arms and hands to walk. However, this same ape has shorter arms and longer legs then most apes that were thought to be the same species. It also has less signs of stress on its arm bones and more on its leg bones. This is a missing link and they are hard to be noticed and most of the time a fossilized skeleton is not the best thing to test for stress via micro-fractures. I just believe the difference between believing the bible and believing Harry Potter is popularity. The bible is the oldest known book in existence and has a jump on Harry Potter books. Who knows though, maybe in 2000 years the truth about Harry Potter books may become askew and people will believe that it is fact a religious artifact.
Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003). Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design. Bullshit! The entire human genome can fit onto a flash drive and takes up less than 300 mb of space. Alternatively, Windows XP takes up 730 mb of space. Regardless, DNA does not prove the existence of god. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975); the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980); evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984); evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984). For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair. Entropy[1]- In simplicity, entropy is the measure of the unavailability of the energy in a system to do work. It describes the tendency of heat to flow from hot regions to cold regions homogenizing the system by allowing energy to be distributed in the greatest number of microstates. The notion that entropy is a measure of disorder is one of the more pervasive misconceptions regarding thermodynamics. In fact, the idea that everything should tend toward disorder is disproven by crystallization. You took an unordered amount of atoms and ordered them in a crystalline pattern which should tell you that order can be achieved even if the second law stated that everything is head towards disorder.[1] If you don't like diamonds you can use snow. You also have the problem of emergence but that's an irrelevancy at this point. But of course you may have objections to this. Crystallization and snow flakes require added energy to form, to which I would agree. If the earth were in a closed system I suspect no life would have arose, however, the earth is an open system as it constantly recieves energy from the sun, which reduces the sun's ability to do work while increasing the earth's ability. It doesn't overcome entropy it just delays it. It's a double-edged sword. You may continue to say that the universe itself is a closed system, which I would disagree once more, since the universe is expanding and the definition of a closed system is that it must be closed and static.[1][2] 1) Sonntag RE, Borgnakke C, Van Wylen GJ. 2002. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 6th ed. Wiley. 2) Spergel DN, Bean R, Doré O, Nolta MR, Bennett CL, Dunkley J, Hinshaw G, Jarosik N, Komatsu E, Page L, Peiris HV, Verde L, Halpern M, Hjill RS, Limon M, Meyer SS, Odegard N, Tucker GS, Weiland JL, E Wollack, and Wright EL. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology. Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 170:377-408. You and I are transitional forms. With that said: Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles. Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales. GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks. Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers! Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins. Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks. Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc. Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray. Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous. A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish. Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish Upper Silurian -- first little scales found. GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified. Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish. Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord. Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws. Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish. Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws. Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder. Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!). Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish. Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike. Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins. Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable." GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet. Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did. Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc. More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land. Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible! Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche. In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial. Transitions among amphibians Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely). Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc. Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc. Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc. Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc. Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc. Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc. From there we jump to the Mesozoic: Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short). Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog. Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander. Finally, here's a recently found fossil: Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma. GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene" says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) -- Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars. Cantius (early Eocene) -- One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye, grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal adaptations. Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene) -- Primitive lemur-like primates. The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene. The Old World lineage continued as follows: Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma) -- Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes). GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several other mammal groups have a similar gap. Parapithecus (early Oligocene) -- The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now. Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line. From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene, Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene. Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) -- From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5- cusped teeth, etc.). Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt) -- Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and shorter face. Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.) -- A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey- like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae. Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa) -- A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons. Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines: Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid- Miocene) -- Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan. Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma) -- Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans. GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids: Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994) Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct. Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like **** teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first **** species. **** habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early **** erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools. **** erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire. Archaic **** sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened. One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead. H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals. Known species-species transitions in primates: Phillip Gingerich has done a lot of work on early primate transitions. Here are some of his major findings in plesiadapids, early lemurs, and early monkeys: Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a gradually changing lineage that passed through three different species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples. praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich (1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million years." Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years. Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C. mckennai to C. trigonodus. And here are some transitions found by other researchers: Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4 million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications." Delson (discussed in Gingerich, 1985) has studied transitions in primates from the Miocene to the present. For instance, in a 1983 paper (see Chaline, 1983), he discussed a possible smooth transition from Theropithecus darti to T. oswaldi, and discusses transitions in hominids, concluding that **** sapiens clearly shows gradual changes over the last 800,000 years. Kurten (1968) reports a smooth transition linking Macaca florentina to M. sylvana. Refutation of every creationist claim against radioactive dating: here. No big deal, just try and do some research next time. Evolution does work towards bigger, smarter, faster, and better. It works towards what can survive. If it doesn't need an organ it will get rid of it to conserve energy. With that said: "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed." Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific. Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis are quite different: What is Abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is the scientific explanation of the origin of life. It is not evolution. Evolution explains how life works once it is here, Abiogenesis explains how it came to be. This topic begs the question, "where did we come from, dirt?" No, you are not dirt. The early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules. Organic molecules are not exclusive to earth, they are found commonly in space (comets etc.). The pre-biotic earth would have contained many simple fatty acids, which under a range of pH they spontaneously form stable vesicles. These vesicles were permeable to small organic molecules, which means complex proteins were not required to acquire these molecules. When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in a solution, it will incorporate them. Eating and growth are driven solely by thermodynamics. When a vesicle grows it adopts a tubular branched shape, which is easily divided by mechanical forces (waves, rocks, etc.). During mechanical division none of the contents of the vesicle are lost. The pre-biotic earth contained hundreds of types of different nucleotides (not just DNA and RNA). Recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA. Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. They can also polymerize in a solution, and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates. No special sequences are required, it is powered by chemistry. We now have vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self replicate, all on their own. How does it become life? Fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, not polymers. Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped within. Floating through the ocean the vesicles will encounter convection currents such as those set up by underwater volcanoes or vents. The high temperature will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane's permeability to monomers. Once it cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur and the process repeats. The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane. A vesicle with more polymer, through simple thermodynamics, will steal lipids from a vesicle with less polymer. This is the origin of competition, they eat each other. A vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, eventually dominating the population. Review: Monomers diffuse into a fatty acid vesicle. Monomer spontaneously polymerize and copy any template. Heat separates strands, increases membrane permeability to monomers. Polymer backbones attract ions, increasing osmotic pressure. Pressure on the membrane drives its growth at the expense of nearby vesicles containing less polymer. Vesicles grow tubular structures. Mechanical forces cause vesicles to divide. Daughter vesicles inherit polymers from the parent vesicle. Polymer sequences that replicate faster will dominate the population, thus beginning evolution. From that point on, the vesicles would mutate, and any beneficial mutation would result in information added to the genome. Soon they would form secondary structures that show some enzymatic activity. Just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and operate as enzymes. Each polymer enzyme would, enhance replication, use high energy molecules in the environment to recharge monomers, synthesize lipids from other molecules in the environment, and modify it's lipids so it could not escape the membrane. There you have it a simple two component system that spontaneously forms in the pre-biotic environment. It can eat, grow, replicate, and evolve, simply through thermodynamic, mechanical, and electrical forces. No ridiculous probability, just organic chemistry. Quarters don't reproduce. Evolution requires procreation. Abiogeneisis as explained above shows how organic molecules form and become working, replicating systems. Simply google observed instances of speciation but I have a question for you. As I've said before, there are two ways to know god: studying his creation and reading scripture. One is second hand information and subject to the whims of a human being. The other is first hand information and it cannot be changed. Observed Instances of Speciation: here.
Nitrous. You are the most amazing debater that I have ever seen. You should write a book- I would read it. Just another example of 'I do not understand evolution, therefore it is false.'
In fairness, the two quotes that contain most of the bulk (pertaining to transitional forms) and the carbon dating response was just a compilation of data. I couldn't possibly have written that in the time frame given.
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - I figured that you didn't write that. Not to provoke speculation about Frank's knowledge about the subject, but he has obviously just copied an article from a website. Just from reading that extract, from the little information I know: Spontaneous Generation - Something cannot come from nothing, energy flow, in all it's forms develpos everything in the universe. Energy is never lost or created, there is the same amount as when the Universe began. Entropy - Nitrous's definitions explained it, but as a simple example, The Big Bang, (which caused a massive amount of entropy to begin with) formed planets such as Earth, which are imensly complex and now harbour life - another complexity in itself. They link to each other really. The flow of energy helped 'create' life and in fact, maintain it. We don't come from nothing, just as our cells divide: it needs energy to happen - or they die. The 'disorder' has created complexity. Of course, what I've said is a very amateur approach to this subject, but in every aspect, I agree with Nitrous and I accept Science's theories. No need to clear up any mistakes I've written, that'd be extra work for you and all down to a misunderstanding of what I, in essence, have skim-read.
So please, no more, "Oh my. Macro evolution is impossible, so evolution is impossible as well." Aaaaaannnd... since some of you religious folks have been saying how you believe in only microevolution... I guess you do believe in evolution now! Congratulations!!!
One question, how do you believe in god and evolution at the same time? i noticed a lot of people think "god" created evolution. I don't understand this, either the bible is true or it's not and if you want to believe a man lived in a giant fish for 3 days then that's cool, i respect that. On the other hand, how do you take anything from a religion seriously if you think creationism isn't true... It all came from the same minds. Just like the creators of religions, you're all just making it up as you go along. Some unknown force or something created everything, yes. An intelligent being that's usually played off as a dude that designed and created all forms of life, absolutely not. As stated multiple times, evolution has so many facts behind it. I'll be a realist here, creationism as in the bible is completely absurd.
The idea of god is not tied to any religion. Just because what other religions say about god may be ridiculous doesn't mean there couldn't be one at all. The idea of god won't fall if you can disprove the bible because that idea is present in many other ways. I think there is a god just because I feel there is one. The thing is though, I'm not stating any of my beliefs as a fact. My beliefs are just my beliefs; just what I think is out there that can't be proven right now.
I'll field this question here, though you've already touched on the answer. The reason it's possible for one to believe in the concept of a creator and the idea of evolution at the same time is that simply believing in a god does not in any sense mean that you believe in the Christian concept of God or his creation. Many people claim that creationism as in the bible is simply a symbolic story, as well. EDIT: Bah, Eons beat me to the punch <.<
This is really a question of the existence of god, so this answer will suffice for this as well: God is a construct created by the human mind to explain the unexplainable and to fill in the mysterious holes in our knowledge and make us feel not so alone in the universe. There is no proof or disproof to the existence of god, but that does not stop belief. In reality, there will never be a way to prove the existence or nonexistence of god, but i still personally believe in god due to some personal experiences i have had that have sufficed as proof enough for me.
Perfect answer. This argument is actually directly tied to religion. It comes directly from it. Without the concepts of religions today, creationism would NOT exist at all. Kind of amazed that people who are believers claim that the two aren't tied... A huge thing is, humans are probably always going to worship the unknown because well... it's unknown. It's in our nature regardless of how destructive it really is. Personal experiences for me have done the opposite, got me to take a step back and really observe. I can't stand to believe in potential lies to make myself feel better and fill that gap.
Creationism can't exist without god, but god can exist without creationism. I said god was the one who wasn't tied. Also, anyone's beliefs have no effect on that statement. And I do not affiliate myself with any religion, I acknowledge that my beliefs could be wrong. They are just personal beliefs/thoughts, nothing more. Exactly.
Well that's a foolish way to go about things. We already know there isn't any real physical proof of God and his creative abilites. That's like me asking you to prove Atheism. Prove the lack of something. It's rather problematic. Just like Aetheists are stuck with disproving God's existence us creationists can pretty much only go about it one way. Obviously, I'm in this one pretty late, but could I ask for a fresh start at things?
No to prove creationism you don't need to prove god. If you want to use the biblical account, give evidence that shows a 6,000 year old earth or evidence that shows a flood or evidence that shows the humans descended from 2 ancestors. Start wherever you are comfortable, rusty.