The Wheel that is spiritual beliefs....

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
7,347
129
0
43
#21
this board really didn't need another preacher.. but it's coo.. preach on.. your putting words in my mouth.. which tends to happen with the fanatic type.. i think religion is great.. if it helps you become a better person.. and i've said that many times.. and tell me .. what do i use for my own purposes since you know me so well?.. not everyone is like you.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#22
PreachOnBrotha said:
So science is infallible?

Welcome to your new religion.

LOL!
you wanted to know where the proof is

I answered your question

If you don't believe science, then you don't believe atoms and molecules exist, you don't believe electromagnetic waves and electricty are real, etc.

basically you live in the stone age

or you just pick and choose which parts of science to believe, according to what fits your religion
 
Mar 17, 2007
108
0
0
46
#23
ThaG said:
Yes, this has happened many times

What has never happened is scientists thinking they have found the final theory of everything that can\\\'t and shouldn\\\'t be revised any more, which is what religion does
So I\\\'ve sat here and told you I honestly believe in the 5 spoked wheel of righteousness.

I could be wrong, but after studying, I find my assessment to be the most satisfying.

Just like a scientist.

If you attack me, you should attack scientists as well.

I\\\'m not some holy roller, let me make that clear.

I am just interested in seeing my family members and friends who passed away some day.

You want to bash me for my good intentions and honest assessments, good for you.

I hope you realize your beliefs and die and come back as a tree someone cuts down and prints the bible on.
 
Aug 15, 2003
1,844
381
83
42
Of the SENIC CITY
#25
^^^ i have a question about evolution. does evolution happen during the occurrence of the problem or is it felt ahead of time (like esp) and happens with going along with the problem. like a giraffe did it know ahead of time it was going to need the long neck or did it suffer while it still had a short neck?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#26
MAGG_KNoWLY_A said:
well i can tell that none of them are right, science will not have a conclusion it will just dabber on with what we got.
Not really

This applies to certain extent to physics, where we really can't be sure where how deep the ultimate limit of complexity lies

But in biology we know the last level of complexity is the submolecular so we're dealing with a finite systems and sooner or later these systems will be understood in all their complexity

With the advancement of genomic, proteomic and all the other -omic tools, I can predict that in less than 100 years we will have apporached this limit of understanding for most model organisms
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#27
PreachOnBrotha said:
So I\\\'ve sat here and told you I honestly believe in the 5 spoked wheel of righteousness.

I could be wrong, but after studying, I find my assessment to be the most satisfying.

Just like a scientist.

If you attack me, you should attack scientists as well.

I\\\'m not some holy roller, let me make that clear.

I am just interested in seeing my family members and friends who passed away some day.

You want to bash me for my good intentions and honest assessments, good for you.

I hope you realize your beliefs and die and come back as a tree someone cuts down and prints the bible on.

you are no scientist because you obviously don't have a clue how science works to begin with

you don't even know the meaning of words like "hypothesis" and "theory"
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#28
MAGG_KNoWLY_A said:
^^^ i have a question about evolution. does evolution happen during the occurrence of the problem or is it felt ahead of time (like esp) and happens with going along with the problem. like a giraffe did it know ahead of time it was going to need the long neck or did it suffer while it still had a short neck?
????????????????????????????????????????
 
Mar 17, 2007
108
0
0
46
#29
MAGG_KNoWLY_A said:
^^^ i have a question about evolution. does evolution happen during the occurrence of the problem or is it felt ahead of time (like esp) and happens with going along with the problem. like a giraffe did it know ahead of time it was going to need the long neck or did it suffer while it still had a short neck?
Girrafes are a pre-historic creature.

Where is your proof they evolved?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#34
Evolution of giraffes

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

Artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals)

"The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and the skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns....the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene..." (Carroll, 1988)

* Chriacus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive oxyclaenid condylarth from the Lower Paleocene. Has many tooth features linking it to later Diacodexis; but in all other ways, including the legs, it was an unspecialized condylarth.

GAP: No artiodactyl fossils known from the late Paleocene. Similar late Paleocene gaps in rodents, lagomorphs, and perissodactyls are currently being filled with newly discovered Asian fossils, so apparently much late Paleocene herbivore evolution occurred in central Asia. Perhaps the new Asian expeditions will find Paleocene artiodactyl fossils too. At any rate, somewhere between Chriacus & Diacodexis, the hind leg changed, particularly the ankle, to allow smooth running.

* Diacodexis (early Eocene) -- A rabbit-sized with longer limbs than the condylarths. The fibula was reduced to a splint, and in some (but not all!) individuals, fused partially to the tibia. Artiodactyl-like "double pulley" ankle (because of this feature, Diacodexis is automatically classified as the first artiodactyl). The feet were very elongated, and the 3rd and 4th toes bore the most weight. Many primitive, non-artiodactyl features retained: collarbone, unfused ulna, primitive femur, unfused foot bones with all 5 toes, could still spread hind limb out to the side, very primitive skull & teeth (all teeth present, no gaps, simple cusps). In fact, in most ways, Diacodexis is just a leggy condylarth. Only the ankle shows that it was in fact the ancestor of all our modern cloven-hoofed animals (possible exception: the hippos & pigs may have split off earlier). There are abundant species-to- species transitions linking Diacodexis to various artiodactyl familes (see below).

Hippos & pigs:

* Helohyus or a similar helohyid (mid-Eocene) -- Primitive artiodactyl, larger than Diacodexis but with relatively shorter & stouter limbs, with bulbous cusps on the molars.
* Anthracotherium and later anthracotheriids (late Eocene) -- A group of heavy artiodactyls that started out dog-size and increased to be hippo-size. Later species became amphibious with hippo-like teeth. Led to the modern hippos in the early Miocene, 18 Ma.
* Propalaeochoerus or a similar cebochoerid/choeropotamid (late Eocene) -- Primitive piglike artiodactyls derived from the helohyids (see above).
* Perchoerus (early Oligocene) -- The first known peccary.
* Paleochoerus (early Oligocene, 38 Ma) -- First known true pig, apparently ancestral to all modern pigs. Pigs on the whole are still rather primitive artiodactyls; they lost the first toe on the forefoot and have long curving canines, but have very few other skeletal changes and still have low-cusped teeth. The main changes are a great lengthening of the skull & development of curving side tusks. These changes are seen Hyotherium (early Miocene), probably ancestral to the modern pig Sus and other genera.

Camels:

* Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
* Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene) -- Similar to Diacodexis but with some advances; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
* Poebrodon (late Eocene) -- First primitive camelid. Like other late Eocene artiodactyls, it had developed crescent-shaped grinding ridges on the cheek teeth. A small, short-necked, four-toed animal with little hooves on each toe.
* Poebrotherium (mid-Oligocene) -- A taller camelid with fused arm & leg bones, and missing toes 1, 4, and 5. Longer neck, though still much shorter than modern camels. Had hooves.
* From here the camel lineage developed pads in place of hooves on the feet, reverted to digitigrade posture, and began pacing instead of trotting, as shown by Miocene fossil footprints. This camel lineage goes through Protomeryx (early Miocene) and Procamelus (Miocene). The llamas split off here (Lama). The main camel lineage continued through Pliauchenia (Pliocene) and finally, in the late Pliocene, Camelus, the modern camels.

Ruminants: (see Scott & Janis, in Szalay et al., 1993, for details)

It's been very difficult to untangle the phylogeny of this fantastically huge, diverse, and successful group of herbivores. From the Eocene on, there are dozens of similar species, only some of them leading to modern lineages, with others in dozens of varied offshoot groups. Only recently have the main outlines become clear. The phylogeny listed below will probably change a bit as new information comes in.

* Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
* Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene, see above)
* Mesomeryx (late Eocene) -- A more advanced dichobunid; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
* Hypertragulus, Indomeryx or a similar hypertragulid (late Eocene) -- Primitive ruminants with a tendency toward crescent ridges on teeth, high-crowned teeth, and loss of one cusp on the upper molars. Long- legged runners and bounders, with many primitive features, but with telltale transitional signs: Still 5 toes on front and 4 behind, but the side toes are now smaller. Fibula still present (primitive), but now partially fused at the ends with the tibia. Upper incisors still present, but now smaller. Upper canine still pointed, but now the lower canine is like an incisor. Ulna and radius fused (new feature). Postorbital bar incomplete (primitive feature). Two ankle bones fused (new feature). Mastoid bone exposed on the surface of the skull (primitive feature).
* Hyemoschus or other tragulids (Oligocene) -- Slightly more advanced ruminants called "tragulids" that have the above features plus loss of part of the first toe, some more bones fused, fibula shaft no longer ossifies. Too late to be actual ancestors; probably "cousins". Some later tragulids are still alive and are considered the most primitive living ruminants.
* Archaeomeryx, Leptomeryx (mid-late Eocene) -- Rabbit-sized ruminants. Still had small upper incisors. The mastoid bone becomes less and less exposed in these "leptomerycids".
* Bachitherium (early Oligocene) -- A later, more advanced leptomerycid.
* Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) -- The most advanced ruminants yet, called "gelocids", with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:
1. Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer -- cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.
2. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.
3. Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.
4. Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#35
Good Models, Bad Models (or, "The FAQ author rambles on for a while")

And now we come to the main question. Which of the many theories of the origins of life on earth are consistent with the known vertebrate fossil record, and explain its major features? I'll go back to the two main models I outlined at the beginning, creationism and evolution, and break them down further into several different possibilities. I'll try to summarize what they say, and whether or not they are consistent with the major features of the fossil record.

1. Evolution alone (with no God, or with a non-interfering God)

Evolution of all vertebrates by descent from a common ancestor, with change occurring both through punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution, and with both modes of species formation (anagenesis and cladogenesis). These mechanisms and modes are consistent with (and in fact are predicted by) what is presently known about mutation, developmental biology, and population genetics According to this model, the remaining gaps in the fossil record are primarily due to the chance events of fossilization (particularly significant if evolution occurs locally or rapidly), in combination with immigration (the spreading of a new species from the site where it evolved out into different areas).
2. Evolution with a "Starting-gate God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God having set everything in motion in the beginning -- for instance, at the initial creation of the universe, or at the initial occurrence of life on earth -- and not having affected anything since.
3. Evolution with a "Tinkering God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God occasionally altering the direction of evolution (e.g., causing sudden extinctions of certain groups, causing certain mutations to arise). The extent of the "tinkering" could vary from almost none to constant adjustments. However, a "constant tinkering" theory may run into the problem that vertebrate history on the whole does not show any obvious direction. For instance, mammal evolution does not seem to have led inescapably toward humans, and does not show any consistent discernable trend (except possibly toward increased body size). Many lineages do show some sort of trend over time, but those trends were usually linked to available ecological niches, not to an inherent "evolutionary path", and the "trends" often reversed themselves when the environment or the competition changed.

Models 1, 2, and 3 are all consistent with the known fossil record.
4. Standard "young-earth" creationism

Creation of separate "kinds" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.
5. "Separately created kinds", but with an old Earth.

Literal creationism won't fly, but could the concept of "separately created kinds" still be viable, with the creations occurring over millions of years? This would require the following convoluted adjustments:

First, if every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?
1. "Minor" evolution allowed.

In this model, the species-species transitions DO represent evolution, but of a minor and unimportant variety. Note, however, that during these bursts of "minor evolution", the evolution took place in an apparently non-directed manner, sometimes crossed genus and family lines, and resulted in just the same sorts of morphological differences that are seen between the other, presumably created, groups of animals.
2. Separately created fossils.

In this model, the "species-species transitions" do not represent evolution. This implies that every individual fossil in the species-to-species transitions must have been separately created, either by creation of the animal that later died and was fossilized, or by creation of a fossil in situ in the rock. I have heard this model called the "Lying God Theory".

In summary, models 1, 2, and 3 (slightly different versions of basic evolutionary theory) are consistent with the fossil record, and go further to explain its notable features with a coherent overarching framework. Evolutionary theory has made successful predictions about fossils that were discovered later (e.g. the whale fossils), about genetic patterns, and about numerous other aspects of biology such as the development of disease resistance. Model 4 (literal young-earth creationism) appears unsalvagable, as all of its predictions are wrong. Model 5 (nonliteral creationism, with separately created kinds on an old earth) can just barely be modified to be consistent with the fossil record, but only with bizarre and convoluted tinkering, and only, apparently, if God created the world to make it look like evolution happened. In my humble opinion, this still utterly fails to explain the record's notable features or to make any useful or testable predictions. It also raises the disturbing question of why God would go to such lengths to set up the appearance of evolution, right down to inserting the correct ratios of radioisotopes in the rocks.

Okay, having blathered on about that, now I'll quit pontificating and get to the main point.
The Main Point
Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.

As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."
 
Mar 17, 2007
108
0
0
46
#37
ThaG said:
Evolution of giraffes

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

Artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals)

\\\"The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and the skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns....the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene...\\\" (Carroll, 1988)

* Chriacus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive oxyclaenid condylarth from the Lower Paleocene. Has many tooth features linking it to later Diacodexis; but in all other ways, including the legs, it was an unspecialized condylarth.

GAP: No artiodactyl fossils known from the late Paleocene. Similar late Paleocene gaps in rodents, lagomorphs, and perissodactyls are currently being filled with newly discovered Asian fossils, so apparently much late Paleocene herbivore evolution occurred in central Asia. Perhaps the new Asian expeditions will find Paleocene artiodactyl fossils too. At any rate, somewhere between Chriacus & Diacodexis, the hind leg changed, particularly the ankle, to allow smooth running.

* Diacodexis (early Eocene) -- A rabbit-sized with longer limbs than the condylarths. The fibula was reduced to a splint, and in some (but not all!) individuals, fused partially to the tibia. Artiodactyl-like \\\"double pulley\\\" ankle (because of this feature, Diacodexis is automatically classified as the first artiodactyl). The feet were very elongated, and the 3rd and 4th toes bore the most weight. Many primitive, non-artiodactyl features retained: collarbone, unfused ulna, primitive femur, unfused foot bones with all 5 toes, could still spread hind limb out to the side, very primitive skull & teeth (all teeth present, no gaps, simple cusps). In fact, in most ways, Diacodexis is just a leggy condylarth. Only the ankle shows that it was in fact the ancestor of all our modern cloven-hoofed animals (possible exception: the hippos & pigs may have split off earlier). There are abundant species-to- species transitions linking Diacodexis to various artiodactyl familes (see below).

Hippos & pigs:

* Helohyus or a similar helohyid (mid-Eocene) -- Primitive artiodactyl, larger than Diacodexis but with relatively shorter & stouter limbs, with bulbous cusps on the molars.
* Anthracotherium and later anthracotheriids (late Eocene) -- A group of heavy artiodactyls that started out dog-size and increased to be hippo-size. Later species became amphibious with hippo-like teeth. Led to the modern hippos in the early Miocene, 18 Ma.
* Propalaeochoerus or a similar cebochoerid/choeropotamid (late Eocene) -- Primitive piglike artiodactyls derived from the helohyids (see above).
* Perchoerus (early Oligocene) -- The first known peccary.
* Paleochoerus (early Oligocene, 38 Ma) -- First known true pig, apparently ancestral to all modern pigs. Pigs on the whole are still rather primitive artiodactyls; they lost the first toe on the forefoot and have long curving canines, but have very few other skeletal changes and still have low-cusped teeth. The main changes are a great lengthening of the skull & development of curving side tusks. These changes are seen Hyotherium (early Miocene), probably ancestral to the modern pig Sus and other genera.

Camels:

* Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
* Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene) -- Similar to Diacodexis but with some advances; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
* Poebrodon (late Eocene) -- First primitive camelid. Like other late Eocene artiodactyls, it had developed crescent-shaped grinding ridges on the cheek teeth. A small, short-necked, four-toed animal with little hooves on each toe.
* Poebrotherium (mid-Oligocene) -- A taller camelid with fused arm & leg bones, and missing toes 1, 4, and 5. Longer neck, though still much shorter than modern camels. Had hooves.
* From here the camel lineage developed pads in place of hooves on the feet, reverted to digitigrade posture, and began pacing instead of trotting, as shown by Miocene fossil footprints. This camel lineage goes through Protomeryx (early Miocene) and Procamelus (Miocene). The llamas split off here (Lama). The main camel lineage continued through Pliauchenia (Pliocene) and finally, in the late Pliocene, Camelus, the modern camels.

Ruminants: (see Scott & Janis, in Szalay et al., 1993, for details)

It\\\'s been very difficult to untangle the phylogeny of this fantastically huge, diverse, and successful group of herbivores. From the Eocene on, there are dozens of similar species, only some of them leading to modern lineages, with others in dozens of varied offshoot groups. Only recently have the main outlines become clear. The phylogeny listed below will probably change a bit as new information comes in.

* Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
* Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene, see above)
* Mesomeryx (late Eocene) -- A more advanced dichobunid; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
* Hypertragulus, Indomeryx or a similar hypertragulid (late Eocene) -- Primitive ruminants with a tendency toward crescent ridges on teeth, high-crowned teeth, and loss of one cusp on the upper molars. Long- legged runners and bounders, with many primitive features, but with telltale transitional signs: Still 5 toes on front and 4 behind, but the side toes are now smaller. Fibula still present (primitive), but now partially fused at the ends with the tibia. Upper incisors still present, but now smaller. Upper canine still pointed, but now the lower canine is like an incisor. Ulna and radius fused (new feature). Postorbital bar incomplete (primitive feature). Two ankle bones fused (new feature). Mastoid bone exposed on the surface of the skull (primitive feature).
* Hyemoschus or other tragulids (Oligocene) -- Slightly more advanced ruminants called \\\"tragulids\\\" that have the above features plus loss of part of the first toe, some more bones fused, fibula shaft no longer ossifies. Too late to be actual ancestors; probably \\\"cousins\\\". Some later tragulids are still alive and are considered the most primitive living ruminants.
* Archaeomeryx, Leptomeryx (mid-late Eocene) -- Rabbit-sized ruminants. Still had small upper incisors. The mastoid bone becomes less and less exposed in these \\\"leptomerycids\\\".
* Bachitherium (early Oligocene) -- A later, more advanced leptomerycid.
* Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) -- The most advanced ruminants yet, called \\\"gelocids\\\", with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:
1. Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer -- cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.
2. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.
3. Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.
4. Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).
None of this is proof that there was no long necked giraffes at the same time these close cousins to giraffes existed.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#38
I hope you realize you're asking for evidence contradicting the theory...

the very lack of such evidence supports the theory very well...
 
Mar 17, 2007
108
0
0
46
#39
ThaG said:
Good Models, Bad Models (or, \"The FAQ author rambles on for a while\")

And now we come to the main question. Which of the many theories of the origins of life on earth are consistent with the known vertebrate fossil record, and explain its major features? I\'ll go back to the two main models I outlined at the beginning, creationism and evolution, and break them down further into several different possibilities. I\'ll try to summarize what they say, and whether or not they are consistent with the major features of the fossil record.

1. Evolution alone (with no God, or with a non-interfering God)

Evolution of all vertebrates by descent from a common ancestor, with change occurring both through punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution, and with both modes of species formation (anagenesis and cladogenesis). These mechanisms and modes are consistent with (and in fact are predicted by) what is presently known about mutation, developmental biology, and population genetics According to this model, the remaining gaps in the fossil record are primarily due to the chance events of fossilization (particularly significant if evolution occurs locally or rapidly), in combination with immigration (the spreading of a new species from the site where it evolved out into different areas).
2. Evolution with a \"Starting-gate God\"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God having set everything in motion in the beginning -- for instance, at the initial creation of the universe, or at the initial occurrence of life on earth -- and not having affected anything since.
3. Evolution with a \"Tinkering God\"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God occasionally altering the direction of evolution (e.g., causing sudden extinctions of certain groups, causing certain mutations to arise). The extent of the \"tinkering\" could vary from almost none to constant adjustments. However, a \"constant tinkering\" theory may run into the problem that vertebrate history on the whole does not show any obvious direction. For instance, mammal evolution does not seem to have led inescapably toward humans, and does not show any consistent discernable trend (except possibly toward increased body size). Many lineages do show some sort of trend over time, but those trends were usually linked to available ecological niches, not to an inherent \"evolutionary path\", and the \"trends\" often reversed themselves when the environment or the competition changed.

Models 1, 2, and 3 are all consistent with the known fossil record.
4. Standard \"young-earth\" creationism

Creation of separate \"kinds\" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable \"sorting\" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six \"metaphorical\" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.
5. \"Separately created kinds\", but with an old Earth.

Literal creationism won\'t fly, but could the concept of \"separately created kinds\" still be viable, with the creations occurring over millions of years? This would require the following convoluted adjustments:

First, if every \"kind\", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of \"kinds\" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no \"kind\" was created until a similar \"kind\" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?
1. \"Minor\" evolution allowed.

In this model, the species-species transitions DO represent evolution, but of a minor and unimportant variety. Note, however, that during these bursts of \"minor evolution\", the evolution took place in an apparently non-directed manner, sometimes crossed genus and family lines, and resulted in just the same sorts of morphological differences that are seen between the other, presumably created, groups of animals.
2. Separately created fossils.

In this model, the \"species-species transitions\" do not represent evolution. This implies that every individual fossil in the species-to-species transitions must have been separately created, either by creation of the animal that later died and was fossilized, or by creation of a fossil in situ in the rock. I have heard this model called the \"Lying God Theory\".

In summary, models 1, 2, and 3 (slightly different versions of basic evolutionary theory) are consistent with the fossil record, and go further to explain its notable features with a coherent overarching framework. Evolutionary theory has made successful predictions about fossils that were discovered later (e.g. the whale fossils), about genetic patterns, and about numerous other aspects of biology such as the development of disease resistance. Model 4 (literal young-earth creationism) appears unsalvagable, as all of its predictions are wrong. Model 5 (nonliteral creationism, with separately created kinds on an old earth) can just barely be modified to be consistent with the fossil record, but only with bizarre and convoluted tinkering, and only, apparently, if God created the world to make it look like evolution happened. In my humble opinion, this still utterly fails to explain the record\'s notable features or to make any useful or testable predictions. It also raises the disturbing question of why God would go to such lengths to set up the appearance of evolution, right down to inserting the correct ratios of radioisotopes in the rocks.

Okay, having blathered on about that, now I\'ll quit pontificating and get to the main point.
The Main Point
Creationists often state categorically that \"there are no transitional fossils\". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the \"chain of genera\" type and the \"species-to-species transition\" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.

As Gould said (1994): \"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life\'s physical geneology.\"[/QUOTE)

Plagiarism