Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

[Old Rocks]

I find it amusing that these self described "smarty pants' can never make a post with their own commentary. They link to some story and then abandon ship all the while thinking to themselves, "look how smart I am...I was able to do a cut and paste!"

Abandon ship? Perhaps you should recount the number of my posts since my OP. And at least I showed up - in the first place.

And so far, in every one of your posts, you haven't posted an original thought. You drop one liners that mean nothing, state nothing, explain nothing, and you expect us to take you seriously....

He has yet to post any lies, that is your field of expertise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Abiogenisis is a differant field of study than evolution. One which is making excellent progress in understanding the many possible paths by which life may have arisen from non-life.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

 

[orogenicman]

Then you won't mind presenting some scientific facts and discussing the issue in your own words. No cutting a pasting allowed. First there was nothing then **poof** there was a Universe. It just decided to create itself as a result of a really big explosion. All that the Universe contains just **popped** into existence by pure chance.

Then, by pure chance, a piece of stone just decided to **poof** create a living cell. Nobody knows what the cell ate but it must have had one hell of a long life span to have evolved into another living organism. Now THAT's a miracle indeed. We certainly aren't sure what **poofed** into existence first -- an animal cell or a plant cell. But wait, perhaps two very different cells **poofed** into existence simultaneously. Thus, by pure happenstance, we had early animal life and early plant life.

Then, once upon a time, this little cell with an extensive life span evolved two, very complex eyeballs, some hair, and a pair of Nikes.

Oh well ... I could go on with the fairytale but I want to listen to yours instead.

How about you reading the OP and then telling us specifically where it is wrong, why it is wrong, and present a better alternative. Can you do that?

Why don't you give a brief synopsis (in your own words) of the links premise. Then tell us why you think it is important to present to us and then identify those facts which support, and those that don't support the central premise.

Are you telling us that you can't read? Somehow I doubt that.

 

[flacaltenn]

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

If you want to see a well organized fossil record, I suggest you go visit the fossil archives at the U.S. National Museum.

Obviously, doesn't tell the whole story.. Too much time wasted looking for "missing links" before we understood the MECHANISMS of genetic evolution.. Darwin needed a "well oganized fossil record --- WE don't require one..

You are part of Jihad placing Darwin and 150 year old science against Biblical Beliefs.. NEITHER side in that war is paying much attention to 150 years of science since Darwin..

Because if they were --- YOU would realize the limited role of Darwinian evolution, and the faithers would have more ammunition for "Acts of God" in terms of macroevolution, extinctions and many major periods of "accelerated" evolution..

 

[flacaltenn]

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

Love the stuff that Newton had no clue about. Same goes for Lyle and Condon. And all of these men would be absolutely elated at the progress that has been made in their disciplines since their time.

Darwin provided the seminal observations and experiments, his book, Origin of the Species stands as a inspiration to all scientists. All the flap-yaps and yahoos in the world cannot falsify his work.

Inspiration?? Of course.. Basing your entire life's war against people of faith on DARWIN? That's plain silly.. Evolution ends up looking not much as Darwin imagined it at all. YES, he got the adaptation and survival parts right -- but he had no clue as to the MULTITUDE of paths that genetic mutatations could take.. In fact, I see people who fancy themselves pragmatic, science-adhering warriors of truth -- STILL wasting time arguing with the fundies over "missing links" being found just to shield their Darwin hero from criticisms that his work was not complete.. Time to realize that inspiration is ENOUGH to commend Darwin, and to stop quoting and defending his work as the Holy Bible of Evolution as we know it.

 

[orogenicman]

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

If you want to see a well organized fossil record, I suggest you go visit the fossil archives at the U.S. National Museum.

Obviously, doesn't tell the whole story.. Too much time wasted looking for "missing links" before we understood the MECHANISMS of genetic evolution.. Darwin needed a "well oganized fossil record --- WE don't require one..

You are part of Jihad placing Darwin and 150 year old science against Biblical Beliefs.. NEITHER side in that war is paying much attention to 150 years of science since Darwin..

Because if they were --- YOU would realize the limited role of Darwinian evolution, and the faithers would have more ammunition for "Acts of God" in terms of macroevolution, extinctions and many major periods of "accelerated" evolution..

Well, none of that is fucking true. Care to try again? And while you are at it, perhaps you could define "faithers". It isn't in my dictionary.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you want to see a well organized fossil record, I suggest you go visit the fossil archives at the U.S. National Museum.

Obviously, doesn't tell the whole story.. Too much time wasted looking for "missing links" before we understood the MECHANISMS of genetic evolution.. Darwin needed a "well oganized fossil record --- WE don't require one..

You are part of Jihad placing Darwin and 150 year old science against Biblical Beliefs.. NEITHER side in that war is paying much attention to 150 years of science since Darwin..

Because if they were --- YOU would realize the limited role of Darwinian evolution, and the faithers would have more ammunition for "Acts of God" in terms of macroevolution, extinctions and many major periods of "accelerated" evolution..

Well, none of that is fucking true. Care to try again? And while you are at it, perhaps you could define "faithers". It isn't in my dictionary.

Are you in denial? Don't know that Darwin expected a "well ordered" fossil record? What part of not "fucking true" are you denying here? You denying that an insurance company might consider a 1000 yr cosmic ray storm "an act of God"?? Or are you not here to discuss your own OP?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So that explains how we can have the diverse species we see today given that Noah's boat could hold so few

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Abiogenisis is a differant field of study than evolution. One which is making excellent progress in understanding the many possible paths by which life may have arisen from non-life.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

So that would explain why life is so prevalent on the Moon and Mars...

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[orogenicman]

Obviously, doesn't tell the whole story.. Too much time wasted looking for "missing links" before we understood the MECHANISMS of genetic evolution.. Darwin needed a "well oganized fossil record --- WE don't require one..

You are part of Jihad placing Darwin and 150 year old science against Biblical Beliefs.. NEITHER side in that war is paying much attention to 150 years of science since Darwin..

Because if they were --- YOU would realize the limited role of Darwinian evolution, and the faithers would have more ammunition for "Acts of God" in terms of macroevolution, extinctions and many major periods of "accelerated" evolution..

Well, none of that is fucking true. Care to try again? And while you are at it, perhaps you could define "faithers". It isn't in my dictionary.

Are you in denial? Don't know that Darwin expected a "well ordered" fossil record? What part of not "fucking true" are you denying here? You denying that an insurance company might consider a 1000 yr cosmic ray storm "an act of God"?? Or are you not here to discuss your own OP?

Define "well ordered". The U.S. National Museum (and many others as well) has a well ordered fossil record (depending on your definition), as well as the largest on the planet, in fact. So again, define "well ordered".

 

[westwall]

How about you reading the OP and then telling us specifically where it is wrong, why it is wrong, and present a better alternative. Can you do that?

Why don't you give a brief synopsis (in your own words) of the links premise. Then tell us why you think it is important to present to us and then identify those facts which support, and those that don't support the central premise.

Are you telling us that you can't read? Somehow I doubt that.

No, I'm implying that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. You are nothing more than a parrot. And a poor one at that.

 

[westwall]

Abandon ship? Perhaps you should recount the number of my posts since my OP. And at least I showed up - in the first place.

And so far, in every one of your posts, you haven't posted an original thought. You drop one liners that mean nothing, state nothing, explain nothing, and you expect us to take you seriously....

He has yet to post any lies, that is your field of expertise.

And to date you have never ever yet, been able to post one of my so called lies. We've posted plenty of yours though!

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, none of that is fucking true. Care to try again? And while you are at it, perhaps you could define "faithers". It isn't in my dictionary.

Are you in denial? Don't know that Darwin expected a "well ordered" fossil record? What part of not "fucking true" are you denying here? You denying that an insurance company might consider a 1000 yr cosmic ray storm "an act of God"?? Or are you not here to discuss your own OP?

Define "well ordered". The U.S. National Museum (and many others as well) has a well ordered fossil record (depending on your definition), as well as the largest on the planet, in fact. So again, define "well ordered".

... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, C. (1859)
The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)
Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292

So we now can understand mechanisms that would have HELPED Darwin envision a more realistic fossil record. 150 years of looking into the genome and understanding HOW it changes... But this Macro stuff you just discovered leads to some VERY INTERESTING points for those who OBJECTED to a smoothly defined fossil record ala Darwin and saw more chaotic and variable evolutionary environments than growing a beak over 10 generations.

Looks like the folks mired in defending EVERYTHING ABOUT Darwin -- are the ones that have been missing out on the more recent science..

NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD

Philosophical naturalism requires that nature be fully continuous. The history of life must be represented by a tree. All life must have a common ancestor. All genetic change must ultimately be the result of purely unguided, materialistic processes. Theism or intelligent design, on the other hand, is much less restraining. Life may be either continuous or discontinuous. It follows that life on earth may be modeled as a either a tree or a forest.

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.
Eldredge, N., 1989
Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

[T]here are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.
Eldredge, N., 1982
The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism
Washington Square Press, pp. 65-66

Acts of God... in the purest legal language are likely to be the dominant drivers behind MacroEvolution. In the 4th quarter of your Darwinian war with the Creationists and the Intel Design folks -- you're about to give up a 20 point lead... Darwin would agree..

 

[orogenicman]

Why don't you give a brief synopsis (in your own words) of the links premise. Then tell us why you think it is important to present to us and then identify those facts which support, and those that don't support the central premise.

Are you telling us that you can't read? Somehow I doubt that.

No, I'm implying that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. You are nothing more than a parrot. And a poor one at that.

And you've shown such talents in this thread by actually reading the OP
describing why and how it is wrong. Oh wait, no you haven't.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you in denial? Don't know that Darwin expected a "well ordered" fossil record? What part of not "fucking true" are you denying here? You denying that an insurance company might consider a 1000 yr cosmic ray storm "an act of God"?? Or are you not here to discuss your own OP?

Define "well ordered". The U.S. National Museum (and many others as well) has a well ordered fossil record (depending on your definition), as well as the largest on the planet, in fact. So again, define "well ordered".

So we now can understand mechanisms that would have HELPED Darwin envision a more realistic fossil record. 150 years of looking into the genome and understanding HOW it changes... But this Macro stuff you just discovered leads to some VERY INTERESTING points for those who OBJECTED to a smoothly defined fossil record ala Darwin and saw more chaotic and variable evolutionary environments than growing a beak over 10 generations.

Looks like the folks mired in defending EVERYTHING ABOUT Darwin -- are the ones that have been missing out on the more recent science..

Darwin was pointing out the failings of the fossil record AS IT EXISTED IN 1859. It is now 2014, in case you hadn't heard. And in case you were wondering, we have discovered millions of fossils that Darwin didn't know about back in 1859, many of which have filled in those gaps everyone in your camp keeps referring to. Really? This is the best you can do? You really should make a visit to the National Museum and tell the scientists there that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they will agree with you - oh wait. No they won't.

 

[flacaltenn]

Define "well ordered". The U.S. National Museum (and many others as well) has a well ordered fossil record (depending on your definition), as well as the largest on the planet, in fact. So again, define "well ordered".

So we now can understand mechanisms that would have HELPED Darwin envision a more realistic fossil record. 150 years of looking into the genome and understanding HOW it changes... But this Macro stuff you just discovered leads to some VERY INTERESTING points for those who OBJECTED to a smoothly defined fossil record ala Darwin and saw more chaotic and variable evolutionary environments than growing a beak over 10 generations.

Looks like the folks mired in defending EVERYTHING ABOUT Darwin -- are the ones that have been missing out on the more recent science..

Darwin was pointing out the failings of the fossil record AS IT EXISTED IN 1859. It is now 2014, in case you hadn't heard. And in case you were wondering, we have discovered millions of fossils that Darwin didn't know about back in 1859, many of which have filled in those gaps everyone in your camp keeps referring to. Really? This is the best you can do? You really should make a visit to the National Museum and tell the scientists there that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they will agree with you - oh wait. No they won't.

Those gaps are still largely unfilled.. And probably never will be filled, because we now know, they never likely existed. (as the other 20th century quotes i gave verified).. Your own fukking OP amplifies that statement genius...

Did Darwin know about "jumping genes" and their potential to change our picture of the fossil record? Why no he didn't... Were he allowed to peeked in 150 years later, he'd be slapping himself in the head...

 

[orogenicman]

So we now can understand mechanisms that would have HELPED Darwin envision a more realistic fossil record. 150 years of looking into the genome and understanding HOW it changes... But this Macro stuff you just discovered leads to some VERY INTERESTING points for those who OBJECTED to a smoothly defined fossil record ala Darwin and saw more chaotic and variable evolutionary environments than growing a beak over 10 generations.

Looks like the folks mired in defending EVERYTHING ABOUT Darwin -- are the ones that have been missing out on the more recent science..

Darwin was pointing out the failings of the fossil record AS IT EXISTED IN 1859. It is now 2014, in case you hadn't heard. And in case you were wondering, we have discovered millions of fossils that Darwin didn't know about back in 1859, many of which have filled in those gaps everyone in your camp keeps referring to. Really? This is the best you can do? You really should make a visit to the National Museum and tell the scientists there that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they will agree with you - oh wait. No they won't.

Those gaps are still largely unfilled.. And probably never will be filled, because we now know, they never likely existed. (as the other 20th century quotes i gave verified)..

Did Darwin know about "jumping genes" and their potential to change our picture of the fossil record? Why no he didn't... Were he allowed to peeked in 150 years later, he'd be slapping himself in the head...

And you can, of course, provide a list of these unfilled gaps, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Darwin was pointing out the failings of the fossil record AS IT EXISTED IN 1859. It is now 2014, in case you hadn't heard. And in case you were wondering, we have discovered millions of fossils that Darwin didn't know about back in 1859, many of which have filled in those gaps everyone in your camp keeps referring to. Really? This is the best you can do? You really should make a visit to the National Museum and tell the scientists there that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they will agree with you - oh wait. No they won't.

Those gaps are still largely unfilled.. And probably never will be filled, because we now know, they never likely existed. (as the other 20th century quotes i gave verified)..

Did Darwin know about "jumping genes" and their potential to change our picture of the fossil record? Why no he didn't... Were he allowed to peeked in 150 years later, he'd be slapping himself in the head...

And you can, of course, provide a list of these unfilled gaps, right?

I was thinking you were sharper than that.. Really Oroman -- I did.. Here's my references.

1) YOUR OWN OP...

2) Things like "jumping genes" and other major revelations about potential SPEEDS of evolutionary processes.

3) studies on extinction events and punctuated acceleration of evolution due to climatic, chemical or radiological occurances..

The gaps are THERE.. And we now are figuring out WHY they exist...
Based on science that played NO ROLE in Darwins original work...

What the hell did you think MACRO-evolution implied?? It is IGNORING the small gradations in the tree of life.. And focusing on major apparent differences and adaptations among species..

 

[orogenicman]

Those gaps are still largely unfilled.. And probably never will be filled, because we now know, they never likely existed. (as the other 20th century quotes i gave verified)..

Did Darwin know about "jumping genes" and their potential to change our picture of the fossil record? Why no he didn't... Were he allowed to peeked in 150 years later, he'd be slapping himself in the head...

And you can, of course, provide a list of these unfilled gaps, right?

I was thinking you were sharper than that.. Really Oroman -- I did.. Here's my references.

1) YOUR OWN OP...

2) Things like "jumping genes" and other major revelations about potential SPEEDS of evolutionary processes.

3) studies on extinction events and punctuated acceleration of evolution due to climatic, chemical or radiological occurances..

The gaps are THERE.. And we now are figuring out WHY they exist...
Based on science that played NO ROLE in Darwins original work...

What the hell did you think MACRO-evolution implied?? It is IGNORING the small gradations in the tree of life.. And focusing on major apparent differences and adaptations among species..

I'm still waiting for the list of those gaps. Let me know when we can expect to see them. In the mean time, here are a few lists of transitional fossils:

List of transitional forms - RationalWiki

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And other gaps in the fossil record that has been filled:

Filling The Gap In The Fossil Record -- ScienceDaily

Penn News | Penn Researchers Develop New Technique for Filling Gaps in Fossil Record

 

[flacaltenn]

And you can, of course, provide a list of these unfilled gaps, right?

I was thinking you were sharper than that.. Really Oroman -- I did.. Here's my references.

1) YOUR OWN OP...

2) Things like "jumping genes" and other major revelations about potential SPEEDS of evolutionary processes.

3) studies on extinction events and punctuated acceleration of evolution due to climatic, chemical or radiological occurances..

The gaps are THERE.. And we now are figuring out WHY they exist...
Based on science that played NO ROLE in Darwins original work...

What the hell did you think MACRO-evolution implied?? It is IGNORING the small gradations in the tree of life.. And focusing on major apparent differences and adaptations among species..

I'm still waiting for the list of those gaps. Let me know when we can expect to see them. In the mean time, here are a few lists of transitional fossils:

List of transitional forms - RationalWiki

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And other gaps in the fossil record that has been filled:

Filling The Gap In The Fossil Record -- ScienceDaily

Penn News | Penn Researchers Develop New Technique for Filling Gaps in Fossil Record

You keep working on those gaps there Darwin.. You stubborn fossil.. They aren't THERE.. Don't NEED to be there. And we shouldn't ever expect to find them all...