Christopher wrote (View Post
): › Notice the key word SPECULATE.
Where did I use the world "speculate" in the last post? I don't find it.
Quote: › all we can do when it come to macro evolution for it can not be scientifically validated.
Sure it can can. We have transitional series of individuals that link species to species to higher taxa. I've posted them before, do you want them again?
Also, we can look at living animals and see the macroevolution of complex structures. This was recently done for the placenta. Look it up yourself. Any public library carries Science
David N. Reznick, Mariana Mateos, and Mark S. Springer Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis Science 298: 1018-1020, Nov. 1, 2002. Intermediate steps in same genus. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mmateos/reznicketal.pdf
News article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/945a
Quote: › Natural selection only subtracts. --Dr, Richard Dawkins
But lets say for argument sake it also "preserves".
That still doesnt answer where do the additions in information come from required for evolution to be work?
1. Notice that you didn't give a citation for Dawkins. No idea where to find where Dawkins supposedly said that. You really don't care about the 9th Commandment, do you? Dawkins would not say this because the whole book Climbing Mt. Improbable
is about natural selection preserving features -- in this case the steps in the evolution of the eye. Also, we have Darwin's own words in describing natural selection:
"But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved
in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation
, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]
2. Mutations are not a loss of information. Another piece of misinformation. Many mutations add DNA: gene duplication, chromosome duplication, translocations, insertions. Now you have extra DNA not needed for the original function. Changes can and are made in this DNA that result in new information/functions.
Recombination often results in new traits as you get new combinations of alleles. Remember, in most traits several genes participate. Getting different combinations of alleles of these genes gives new information.
Quote: › Every species we see in "real time" can only adapt so far to its environment otherwise they simply go extinct.
Another falsehood. We see new species forming from old in 'real time", adding new traits and features in the process. My favorite is the experiment placing fruit flies on diets of bread or meat. At the end there are new species of flies that can eat bread or meat where, before, they could not.
Quote: › Gould once said:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt"
Another quote out of context. Again, you didn't give the source. Naughty. But, as it happens, I do have the original article where Gould describes PE. As you will see, while there is "precious little" of intermediate forms, there are some. Gould has published on them and I have posted the picture from his paper on this site.
""Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist for long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. ...
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.
"All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means 'in another place'). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare - as the fossil record proclaims.
"But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small, peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts
, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."
Quote: › Now you may say notice the "precious little" meaning there should be some. My guess is he was just being generous due to the fact we have none.
You are wrong. Here are just a few papers of transitional series of individuals:
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Quote: › I mean over all these millions of years wouldnt there be scores and scores of transitional fossils?
And yet there are not.
Yes, there are. You are just ignorant of them. Your ignorance of the data does not mean the data does not exist.
Quote: › But neither artificial selection nor natural selection can ever extend beyond the confines of the closed permanent boundary of a distinct creature.
And where are those boundaries? If such boundaries existed then phylogenetic analysis would show that. It doesn't. Instead it finds the opposite, that the DNA sequences of all organisms are interconnected thru historical connections.
This "boundary" has never been observed in DNA. It's a made-up thing by creationists. If there were such a DNA boundary, where are the creationist papers showing that DNA can't change?