Right, there is no proof of macro evolution.

Respectfuly, I do not think we are on the same subject. Do you understand what I mean between micro and macro evolution? I'm not refering to microevolution (same as adaption). That is proven, and not being doubted here.

Respectfully, I have answered this by stating it would change many things. I compared a false story to a false story. Superman/macroevolution.

I am assuming you re refering to adaption as your solid evidence to microevolution. That is why I am asking you these things.

I know what the theory of evolution is, and what a comparison is. I'm aware of what I am saying.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that gravity didn't exist a couple million years ago? I don't follow how you are applying time to gravity?

Birds of flight that over time become birds of swimming. We see them now as birds with mishappen wings. Is this what you would call adaptation. It's changing from one thing to another thing. Granted it is still a bird, but where once it flew, now it can't.


Micro/macro,who dictates this line of significance? As if there is a difference beyond severity of change.

The idea that the information is already there, in our DNA for mutations only leads to strengthen the idea of evlution. THe possibility for change is built into the core of life. The building blocks of life come equipt with everything needed to make change. It is the rest of the world( I mean climate, preditors, ect) that dictates what makes it and what doesn't.

Alright, show me the birds inbetween. Are you saying there is evidence, or are you saying it's there, and now we have this different bird?


Well it started decades ago by some scientist, but what difference does it make who dictates this?


There is a difference between severity of change. One is observed, the other isn't. One has evidence, and the other is theorized.

But as rogue has been saying, you don't have the transitional species.  You don't have any proto-penguins which can fly AND swim (of course, that's because they couldn't compete against birds which were better fliers and other birds which were better swimmers, but his point still stands).  The problem with Rogue's problem is its a tautology.  There's no such thing as a living transitional species because the assumption is a transitional species will fall between species A and B, rather than have traits that neither A nor B currently have.  Transitional species by definition are those that fill the gap between a previous species and a new species.  Because species are constantly changing, the previous species are all dead and the new species haven't come around yet, so there are, by definition, no living transitional species (although they will be considered transitional in the future).



This is a flaw with science.  Humans like sharp lines to define continuous changes.  We define the difference as being when two groups cannot produce viable offspring, but really this isn't a sharp definition (however it will have to suffice).  Because this is a continuum, not distinct steps, micro and macro evolution are one and the same, or else they are useless, just like centimeters and meters are the same, just on different scales.



Again, this is another one of Rogue's points (and definitely one of his better ones, one which I'm hoping Falkus will address).  A protozoa does NOT have the genetic material of a human.  It has only a small fraction of the DNA a human has.  Clearly, at many points along the line, genetic material was ADDED to that of our ancestors.  So no, not all the information is 'already there', it needs to be added at points to allow for more complex species.

First off, nicely said. My hats off to you Katisara.

Clearly, at many points along the line, genetic material was ADDED to that of our ancestors.  So no, not all the information is 'already there', it needs to be added at points to allow for more complex species.

But what if the less evolved version of a thing, is the only thing that has the building materal to become something else. So, we won't find anything with our building blocks because we are it. We are that thing with the DNA capabilities of become what we are. And who knows what potential is till locked in there?

Respectfully, Nerdicus, what you are saying isn't really what DNA is done.

For example, a one celled organism is theorized to be able to change into a higher organism. What we see in observable science is that there isn't any one celled organism giving birth to a frog. It doesn't result in new additonal information needed to be able to be a frog. There's just not enough information for a frog.

That is what the theory of evolution requires, where a simple life form has evolved into very advanced life forms such as humans.

A challenge to you Nerdicus. Can you tell me something about evolution that is a fact, and not just assumed? I don't mean to be above you, or say I know everything. To be specific, I too believed evolution to be factual for most of my life. It was what I was taught, with zero other possibilities. (after all it was taught as a fact)
I actually had to go on my own to learn what is fact and what is assumed.

So the challenge is, what evidence do we have that one cell organism to human being has occurred?
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:05, Thu 04 May 2006.

Well, we'll never see that. Evolution is a slow proccess, and we will not be able to see this proof you seem to need to accept it.

You are saying that you need to watch a creature turn from one to another. Or more specifically, you need to see something evolve from something simple to something advanced.

The theory of evolution does not say that a one celled organism can turn into a complex cellular creature. It is a long proccess spanning huge amount of years.

That is what the theory of evolution requires, where a simple life form has evolved into very advanced life forms such as humans.

No, that is what you need.  That is what you require to believe in evolution, not what evolution needs to exsist.

So you're saying it is only made up? That the evidence is not actually there?

Correct, without evidence, it is only guessing.

Respectfully, that is exactly what evolution is saying. How did humans get to be here? Do you think the only life on earth came from one celled oragnisms or no? If no, then what did life evolve from?

Again, respectfully, you are in error. It is what evolution is based on.

You make it sound like it is a great leap in evolution. I acknowledge that it is a proccess involving untold numbers of other proccess all interlocked and interwoven. Much like the comlexity of....say life.

So you're saying it is only made up? That the evidence is not actually there?
No. I'm saying that the evidence you need to see isn't there. Actually, wait, it is there. That transitional species we were looking for, it's there. It's that bird I refered to, the one that used to fly, but now it swims, but it still has wings. And I am not talking about penguins. I can't remember the name of them, but they are in the Gallopogus islands. Of course, we can only hypothisize that they once flew, but we can say for certain that the wings they still have, impede there swimming.


Again, respectfully, you are in error. It is what evolution is based on.
I amnot in error, those who believe in evolution are willing to except the proof we do have. You are not. THe idea that we as a being will be able to witness a stage in a creatures evolutionary saga, meens that we have to learn how to live longer then we do. I mean, shoot, I guess we could start filming animals in the wild and hope that in the future someone see's it and is able to put the peices together to witnees the evolution. Given that we don't have those capabilities though, we just have to make do with what we do have as proof of evolution.

To turn this around, it is like saying I refuse to believe in a God until he comes and talks to me. Until I see him, in front of me, or witness his presence he does not exsist.

I understand that not everyone is an expert. I'm not either. But that is not a transitional species just because it can swim. Penguins can swin as well. There are still some birds that swin underwater, and fly.

I can use my hands to pull, pick up, push to swim, and so on. An animal that can multi function does not mean transitional.


Sorry you feel this way. I do not know how else to tell you this, but evolutionists really do believe that all creatures have evolved from one celled organisms. I did not make this up. Check out some of Darwin's research, it might make you realize that it is in fact true.

I understand and agree with the concept of evolution. Right to the fact that it all started form tiny one celled creatures. I just don't see the journey from that to where we are as one step.

Perhaps the parts that are missing form the equation are God's hand in things?

I understand that not everyone is an expert. I'm not either. But that is not a transitional species just because it can swim. Penguins can swin as well. There are still some birds that swin underwater, and fly.

You are not aware of the species that I am speaking of. It is not simply a bird that can fly and swim at the same time. I am talking about something that swims at a disadvantage due to the wing like extremities that it has. A bird that most likely flew in the not too distant past. Relative to how it takes for things to evolve that is. I will do my best to find info on this bird to show you.

Who said one step? A little miscommunication then?


It's not a matter of me knowing or not knowing. I can rightly imagine what you are refering to. It's likely the penguin from the islands you speak of. They aren't just in the the Antartic.

Now having said that, that's still not what a transitional species. Let me give you an example. A transitional species is the animal that is the inbetweener. Evolutionists have come up with a theory to explain why they are not found in the fossil record, it's called Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically since they believe evolution took place, but it happened extrememly fast. So instead of taking hundreds and thousands of slight mutations, it took only a few, large and radical changes to alter the animals.

 Why do you think it is close to the mark? Wouldn't that by default make an ostrich and an emu and a penguin close to the mark as well?

So I think maybe you might be agreeing with me now on the difficulty of transitional.

I don't consider transitional species really an issue for or against evolution. With most fossils as a result from the great flood, fossils are pretty rare, and limited to environments where sudden death, and rapid covering with mineral rich layers happening, that's why we don't find many transitional fossils, since fossils are not like pennies, and just tossed anywhere.

The problem isn't so much finding an animal with more DNA compared to one with less, but seeing the addition of completely new genetic material (in regards to amount) to a creature's reproductive cells, and then that genetic material is successfully combined with other members of the species to create a new breed that has more DNA than its predecessors.  Even if this is only an addition of a few little amino acids on the end of an existing chromosome, I personally am not aware of science having documented this sort of change happening.  And if we can't be certain that DNA can be added on, or that that added on DNA will be passed on to younger generations, the theory of evolution has a big question to be answered.



This is not precisely true.  A one celled organism is not believed to be able to change into a multi-celled organism.  A single-celled organism is believed to be able to *create* a multi-celled organism, but both organisms are otherwise exceptionally similar.  The multi-celled organism is capable of creating another organism with other changes not reflected in either parent.  But no single celled organism will turn into a frog, rather one of their descendents will be a frog (if we're talking about a particular organism far in the past).  The parents of this frog will be so much like frogs, people will likely call them frogs too (and only a specialist in frogs would be able to point out the difference, likely based on a simple structure being a different direction or a millimeter longer than it should or some other technicality), just like their parents and theirs before that, and you'll have to go back quite a ways until the accumulated changes become such that it's clearly not a frog.

(Well, what I said isn't precisely true either.  A zygote is a single celled organism that changes into a multi-celled organism.)



I had never heard that, and I suspect you'll find that Punctuated Equilibrium is not held by all evolutionists.  We HAVE found evidence of transitional species.  We've found dozens of species between us and apes, sharing qualities of both, but fully matching neither.

But rogue is right in his last post, fossils are unusual enough that it's difficult to find even a few transitional species, muchless the thousands or hundreds that would be required to fully illustrate the change over time.

Punctuated Equilibrium actually was thought up around 30 years ago. It was suggested mainly because of the lack of transitional fossils.

I obviously don't believe it either, but it was something sugested because the lack of evidence was troubling.

I don't think you are willing to accept the concept of the Flightless Cormerant as a transitional species, though it is. All other Breeds of Cormerants on the planet fly and swim. They are sleek diving birds that can fly great. THe Cormerant for the Galapogus islands, can no longer fly, though it still has wings designed for flight. THe wings don't work for flight, but are still there.

In time it is likely that the wings will EVOLVE into devices more suited to swimming. Provided the little guys can survive. Given that they have not had any preditors for so long and have been nearly wiped out because of it.

Your concept of a transitional species isn't really realistic. This chimerac like creature of dual design. If we switch this to humans and primates, as Kat said, we have indeed found what could be the remains of "transisitonal species" but they most likely would not have what is required for you to call it a transitional. IE, the poster of an ape and the skull =sized to fit a big brain. Or evidence of a leranx(SP?) in the correct position to offer the ability to speak. Which is one of mans fisrt real steps forward in the evolutionary train of change.

I fully realize that as a theory, Evolution still has far to go before it is more fully proven. I mean, relatively speaking, it is a fledgling concept. We as a species are still fledglings. Our exsistance is still in it's early stages. Unless of course we manage to destroy ourselves before too long.

Nerdicus, have I offended you? It seems like you are saying that I have made up terms used by evolution. Saying things such that I have an unrealistic view of transitional because you think of it differently isn't a very strong argument. Respectfully, you've said this a few times, and to be honest, it seems like you have been basing this on how you view it, rather than based on actual research.

Nope, I'm not offended at all. Perhaps if I was related to Darwin I might be, but I don't really care. I've been reserching as we have been discussing this.  I am not saying that you are making up terms used by evolution, but rather miss using the terms. The flightless Cormerant is a transitional species. I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge this, that is your own choice, but it doen't negate that fact that they are indeed transitional.

 The more I have looked into this subject as we discuss it, the more I find to give weight to the theory of evolution. Granted, it is still a theory, and that means that there are many aspects of it that are unfinished and are yet to be uncovered, but what we do have is pretty solid.

I honestly think we have beaten the dead horse so to speak. By that I mean, we have reached an impass. YOu don't want to believe in evolution. Thats ok. I don't want to believe in Genisis. That's ok too.

Ok, so let's look at transitional species as something we can understand. Car's( i know they are not a species, but let's pretend) started out as a steam powered invention. I tthen evolved into the combustion engine. Now we have a plethera of cars on the planet, the remains of which can be found in the front lawns of rednecks( I couldn't resist). If we look at the remains, we would have a very slim chance of finding any with a steam engine. That doesn't mean that they didn't exsist but rahter, because of their unstable exsistance, we have much lesss of the remains to look at.
Here is a quote:
Consider transitional species like experimental prototypes. For example, steam-powered automobiles existed for a hundred years before the internal combustion engine. Then there was a short period of innovation, including the invention of four-wheel breaks, the independent suspension, and the electric ignition -- the accoutrements of all modern cars. After that, major innovations ended, and a tremendous population expansion occurred. The car, once modernized into a viable mass-market product, exploded onto the scene. The billions of cars since then have remained as a cohesive species, with only superficial and minor changes. And so, from our aliens' perspective, having not seen the horse-and-carriage, nor any of the pre-modern cars before the 1930s, they would conclude that the modern car emerged spontaneously, fully-formed.



The transitional species you are looking for is like the Bird/lizard that would show that dinosaurs turned to birds, or the dog/whale that would show that Dolphins did indeed turn from land mammal resembling the dog, into a small whale. These things would have been an oddity and so would be difficult to find.

I found a reference by a scientist that said our fossil data base has probably around one billionth of the fossils that are actually out there.

Good theories take evidence and then arrive at a conclusion. Unsound theories, like intelligent design, take a lack of evidence, then turn it into a suggestion, and then finally conclude that they have a valid theory.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:15, Thu 04 May 2006.

Nerdicus, I know what a transition is. I am aware that an animal that has any changes whatsoever is a transition.

Here's a challenge. What "facts" are there for evolution?

We have a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly. We have time as evidence for evolution. We have .....what else?

What we don't have is a basic creature turning into a complex creature.

You said for evolution, that it is not based on a lack of evidence, right? So please go on with the evidence you speak of.

Let's just look at the evolution of man. We have evidence of our ancestral man and the changes to man of today. Ie, starting out like a primate and evolving into man. Skull changes to allow for a bigger brain. Changes in posture.

The fruit fly that evolves into a fruit fly that you so put, is a key example. THe two variations of fruit fly came form one, but are two totally didfefrent types. As in they can't reproduce together, but can on their own. As in each type can reproduce with it's own kind.

I want to point out that the examples you're using is a common thought process, and at first glance may seem to support evolution. Really what is happening though is a loss of information in a sense. Other cormorants can swim, and fly. This particular bird you speak of is actually losing flight. (and it is dying off since it can no longer handle the environment it is now in.) This is the opposite of becoming more complex. This is not evidence for one celled organism to man evolution. This is support for mutation, and possibly adaption, but not on what the theory of evolution tells us.


I found it just the opposite, everything I was taught about evolution I have found is based on assumptions.

It's not a matter of wanting to believe in Evolution. You could say I just don't have enough faith to believe in the theory. But really, follow the evidence. It's based on assumptions. You must realize that is why evolution is still only a theory.

Where the theory of evolution is a theory based on scientific practices, Ie, taking evidence and building a theory from it, Intelegent design builds its concept on the lack of evidence. That is not science. Building an idea out of a lack of proof is....like building a house on the sand.

Your comment on the Cormerant is choosing to look at the fact that it is evolving. Granted it is not a change that is going to help it out in the long run(maybe) it is a ohysiological change at a genetic level.

 because we don't see simple forms evolving into complex forms doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't happened, it means we have yet to find evidence of it. But we have found evidence of it.

Are you aware of the fact that all forms of life are carbon based? As in, we are all formed of the same stuff. everyhithng in exsistance on our planet that lives is carbon based. Why do you thing that is? Perhaps because we all evolved form a carbon based one celled organism.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:58, Thu 04 May 2006.

Could you explain what you mean? What evidence do you speak of? Are you going by evidence, or that people say we evolved from ape?

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.
This message was lightly edited by the GM at 15:57, Thu 04 May 2006.