Creation Vs Evolution

[Dhampir]

Your condescending tone is fine, and im sure that I have nothing to gain from trying to prove I have taken and passed bio 101, I did though and I made an 89 if you must know-lol

 

I never claimed to be an expert by any strech of your imagination, but what I think im hearing here is that Evolution cant be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, which is fine, bc I cant prove my beliefs either, I was just curious as to what you all believe, and to question it, some ppl have been constructive, while others have been less so, and thats to be expected on forums. Have any of you studied about how the early text books when speaking of evolution change, one might say there was a big bang, one might say we evolved from fish in the ocean, im paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea, for something so "solid" of an idea such as evolution goes, why the changes in stories?? I'm just curious here, humor me ppl, i mean there are diff interpretations of the Bible, maybe thats the same for evolution, enlighten me please.

Within the scientific community, there IS NO question that evolution has happened/ is happening. It has been shown though 150 years of evidence, and it has been observed directly. By all of us, even you. The theory of Evolution is one of the soundest ideas in science, moreso than The Big Bang, and even Gravity. The only debate within science regarding Evolution revolves around the exact mechanisms for it, and how each of the known mechanisms play into it-- Genetic drift, Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, etc., and how much of an impact each one has.

 

Compare this to Creationism, which you mistakenly call science. Creationism has never presented any ACTUAL theories of its own. It merely picks at the inconsistencies of it's opposition, both actual and imagined. There is NO evidence for it, as opposed to Evolution, which has, among other things, the Fossil Record, DNA, the predictions made for DNA BY Evolution-- before DNA was even discovered, and various other predictions which have been shown to be true. That by the way is one of the hallmarks of a sound Theory: that it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be true.

 

Science will start by presenting an idea for testing and experimentation, along with observation. based on all that, theories are formed, then submitted for peer review-- Have you ever had a job where someone else was required to check your work before it could be sent off? Quality control, that's what peer review is, as well as peer testing. Someone that works in the same field should be able to use your theory, and get the same exact results. Once peer review has met with general agreement (after what can be a great deal of refinement) THEN, does it get presented to the public at large. That's not to say that it isn't wrong, but the best possible investigation at the time has yielded this answer, and it's very unlikely to be completely wrong.

 

Creationism however, being devoid of science, wants to bypass the rigorous tests of veracity, and instead subject its ideas to public opinion. Science is not a democracy-- your ideas don't have merit just because a bunch of uneducated people feel good when you tell them about it. Creationism is not a science-- The term Creation Science is an oxymoron.

[Legion]

Thank you for the reply Jdiddy.

 

trial and error is all fine and good, but for that reason to work wouldnt it need to remember?

As I see it, the memory of an organism is stored in it's genome.

 

As for evolution stopping, I think that as long as species have genetic diversity and as long as the environment continues to exert a selection pressure then species will continue to evolve.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Your condescending tone is fine, and im sure that I have nothing to gain from trying to prove I have taken and passed bio 101, I did though and I made an 89 if you must know-lol

 

I never claimed to be an expert by any strech of your imagination, but what I think im hearing here is that Evolution cant be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, which is fine, bc I cant prove my beliefs either, I was just curious as to what you all believe, and to question it, some ppl have been constructive, while others have been less so, and thats to be expected on forums. Have any of you studied about how the early text books when speaking of evolution change, one might say there was a big bang, one might say we evolved from fish in the ocean, im paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea, for something so "solid" of an idea such as evolution goes, why the changes in stories?? I'm just curious here, humor me ppl, i mean there are diff interpretations of the Bible, maybe thats the same for evolution, enlighten me please.

Within the scientific community, there IS NO question that evolution has happened/ is happening. It has been shown though 150 years of evidence, and it has been observed directly. By all of us, even you. The theory of Evolution is one of the soundest ideas in science, moreso than The Big Bang, and even Gravity. The only debate within science regarding Evolution revolves around the exact mechanisms for it, and how each of the known mechanisms play into it-- Genetic drift, Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, etc., and how much of an impact each one has.

 

Compare this to Creationism, which you mistakenly call science. Creationism has never presented any ACTUAL theories of its own. It merely picks at the inconsistencies of it's opposition, both actual and imagined. There is NO evidence for it, as opposed to Evolution, which has, among other things, the Fossil Record, DNA, the predictions made for DNA BY Evolution-- before DNA was even discovered, and various other predictions which have been shown to be true. That by the way is one of the hallmarks of a sound Theory: that it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be true.

 

Science will start by presenting an idea for testing and experimentation, along with observation. based on all that, theories are formed, then submitted for peer review-- Have you ever had a job where someone else was required to check your work before it could be sent off? Quality control, that's what peer review is, as well as peer testing. Someone that works in the same field should be able to use your theory, and get the same exact results. Once peer review has met with general agreement (after what can be a great deal of refinement) THEN, does it get presented to the public at large. That's not to say that it isn't wrong, but the best possible investigation at the time has yielded this answer, and it's very unlikely to be completely wrong.

 

Creationism however, being devoid of science, wants to bypass the rigorous tests of veracity, and instead subject its ideas to public opinion. Science is not a democracy-- your ideas don't have merit just because a bunch of uneducated people feel good when you tell them about it. Creationism is not a science-- The term Creation Science is an oxymoron.

 

 

 

 

Why not call it a law then instead of a theory? I mean last I checked there was a law of gravity right? So why no law of evolution?

[Dhampir]

Here's something that I think is really important. We (those of us that have at least a rudimentary understanding of Evolution) need to stop saying we "believe in" Evolution. We've studied the evidence, and we Accept it, as well as the Veracity of the scientists that have been studying it these past 150 years. It's not a thing to be believed in. Either you understand it, and accept it, or you believe that it's impossible/unlikely, no matter how much you may actually have learned.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Thank you for the reply Jdiddy.

 

trial and error is all fine and good, but for that reason to work wouldnt it need to remember?

As I see it, the memory of an organism is stored in it's genome.

 

As for evolution stopping, I think that as long as species have genetic diversity and as long as the environment continues to exert a selection pressure then species will continue to evolve.

 

 

Thanks for being nice first off, secondly my next question to you is do you think in say 50 to 80 million yrs something that lived then would have evolved significantly enough to view differences in a speicies if it were alive today, I mean that a long time right? if you answered yes, then why has the Coelacanth still the same today as the fossils they carbon dated to find out how long ago it lived? Just curious.

[florduh]

Try this link for a quick refresher course:

 

LINK

 

It is impossible to teach biology in an online forum, particularly to the unwilling student who has made up his mind that science is the enemy of his faith. At least read some of what science has to say to gain an understanding of what evolution actually is. You seem to be unaware of the definitions and references used in discussing the topic.

[Legion]

Jdiddy I think it’s important to remember that many words have multiple meanings. ‘Theory” in the scientific sense has a completely different meaning from its non-scientific usage.

 

Theory in science basically means an explanation.

 

Theory in common usage often means “guess”. The scientific equivalent of “guess” is hypothesis.

 

Scientists hypothesize and then they make predictions. If the predictions are shown accurate the hypothesis is promoted to theory.

 

That's my current understanding at least.

[Dhampir]

Thanks for being nice first off, secondly my next question to you is do you think in say 50 to 80 million yrs something that lived then would have evolved significantly enough to view differences in a speicies if it were alive today, I mean that a long time right? if you answered yes, then why has the Coelacanth still the same today as the fossils they carbon dated to find out how long ago it lived? Just curious.

Any time you ask a question like that, ask yourself why it is that science knows this, and yet still unequivocally accepts evolution. Since you did enough legwork to get this information, you KNOW there's an answer to this question. You either didn't read far enough to learn it, or you intentionally stopped before finding it out-- possibly feeling that that by itself is enough of a stumbling block for those that profess Evolution.

[Legion]

Thanks for being nice first off, secondly my next question to you is do you think in say 50 to 80 million yrs something that lived then would have evolved significantly enough to view differences in a speicies if it were alive today, I mean that a long time right? if you answered yes, then why has the Coelacanth still the same today as the fossils they carbon dated to find out how long ago it lived? Just curious.

It’s no problem for me to be kind to you Jdiddy. I argued with my father for years about evolution. And I was able to maintain my love for him despite the fact that we deeply disagreed.

 

I don’t know if I understand your question. But I’ll take a stab at it.

 

Let’s return for a moment the analogy of learning. If I understand how to do something sufficiently well then there is no pressure for me to learn. And any changes I try to make in my understanding may actually be a detriment to me.

 

The shark has not significantly changed in millions of years. Apparently it is adapted sufficiently to its environment.

[florduh]

Should there be any doubt that transitional forms exist (missing links) here is a small sample of them with explanations of the differing traits:

 

 

Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals

 

This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al., 1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." For more details, see Kermack's superb and readable little book (1984), Kemp's more detailed but older book (1982), and read Szalay et al.'s recent collection of review articles (1993, vol. 1).

 

This list starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. Here are some differences to keep an eye on:

 

# Early Reptiles Mammals

1 No fenestrae in skull Massive fenestra exposes all of braincase

2 Braincase attached loosely Braincase attached firmly to skull

3 No secondary palate Complete bony secondary palate

4 Undifferentiated dentition Incisors, canines, premolars, molars

5 Cheek teeth uncrowned points Cheek teeth (PM & M) crowned & cusped

6 Teeth replaced continuously Teeth replaced once at most

7 Teeth with single root Molars double-rooted

8 Jaw joint quadrate-articular Jaw joint dentary-squamosal (*)

9 Lower jaw of several bones Lower jaw of dentary bone only

10 Single ear bone (stapes) Three ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus)

11 Joined external nares Separate external nares

12 Single occipital condyle Double occipital condyle

13 Long cervical ribs Cervical ribs tiny, fused to vertebrae

14 Lumbar region with ribs Lumbar region rib-free

15 No diaphragm Diaphragm

16 Limbs sprawled out from body Limbs under body

17 Scapula simple Scapula with big spine for muscles

18 Pelvic bones unfused Pelvis fused

19 Two sacral (hip) vertebrae Three or more sacral vertebrae

20 Toe bone #'s 2-3-4-5-4 Toe bones 2-3-3-3-3

21 Body temperature variable Body temperature constant

(*) The presence of a dentary-squamosal jaw joint has been arbitrarily selected as the defining trait of a mammal.

 

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.

Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)

Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".

Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.

Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".

Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.

Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.

Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.

Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.

Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.

Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.

Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.

Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.

Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.

Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.

Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.

GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. Recent discoveries seem to show trithelodontids to be more mammal- like, with tritylodontids possibly being an offshoot group (see Hopson 1991, Rowe 1988, Wible 1991, and Shubin et al. 1991). Bear in mind that both these groups were almost fully mammalian in every feature, lacking only the final changes in the jaw joint and middle ear.

 

Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.

Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.

Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.

Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.

Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.

Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.

Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.

Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.

Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)

Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.

Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)

Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.

Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).

Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous) -- Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So, by the late Cretaceous the three groups of modern mammals were in place: monotremes, marsupials, and placentals. Placentals appear to have arisen in East Asia and spread to the Americas by the end of the Cretaceous. In the latest Cretaceous, placentals and marsupials had started to diversify a bit, and after the dinosaurs died out, in the Paleocene, this diversification accelerated. For instance, in the mid- Paleocene the placental fossils include a very primitive primate-like animal (Purgatorius - known only from a tooth, though, and may actually be an early ungulate), a herbivore-like jaw with molars that have flatter tops for better grinding (Protungulatum, probably an early ungulate), and an insectivore (Paranyctoides).

 

The decision as to which was the first mammal is somewhat subjective. We are placing an inflexible classification system on a gradational series. What happened was that an intermediate group evolved from the 'true' reptiles, which gradually acquired mammalian characters until a point was reached where we have artificially drawn a line between reptiles and mammals. For instance, Pachygenulus and Kayentatherium are both far more mammal-like than reptile-like, but they are both called "reptiles".

[Guest Jdiddy]

I see what you guys are saying, however for every link you give, I can bring up several christian sites with information they say is evidence against evolution. They should have 10 of the absolute smartest men in the world of evolution and 10 of the smartest men in the world of creation and they should duke it out to the bitter end. I would def like to see that. How old is the world to you guys? If we are constantly evolving then how can you say that the shark has evolved all it needs to to live in its environment? I havent looked to find the answer about the extinct fish, still curious, guess ill have to look it up really quick, i just thought you guys might save me the trouble. Evolution is like 9/11 you guys (meaning the experts) are really good about scrambling and changing things around to make the story stick and seem viable-lol I know im gonna get blown up on that one hahaha its cool though. if someone wants to answer the fish thing though to save me the rtouble by all means do it.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Evolution is wrong links.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

 

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

So here are some links with info that says evolution is wrong, I've seen a glimpse at your side of the issue today and its been fun, I would be curious to hear what you all have to say about the topics discussed in these links though.

[Legion]

Jdiddy I like the idea that someone had (I wish I could remember who) about turning the tables.

 

Let me, kindly I hope, put some pressure on you.

 

Let's throw out and disregard evolution for a moment. To hell with evolution.

 

What is your hypothesis (guess) about how all the various species came to be? And, this is very important, what predictions does this hypothesis make so that we may verify it?

[Dhampir]

I see what you guys are saying, however for every link you give, I can bring up several christian sites with information they say is evidence against evolution. They should have 10 of the absolute smartest men in the world of evolution and 10 of the smartest men in the world of creation and they should duke it out to the bitter end. I would def like to see that. How old is the world to you guys? If we are constantly evolving then how can you say that the shark has evolved all it needs to to live in its environment? I havent looked to find the answer about the extinct fish, still curious, guess ill have to look it up really quick, i just thought you guys might save me the trouble. Evolution is like 9/11 you guys (meaning the experts) are really good about scrambling and changing things around to make the story stick and seem viable-lol I know im gonna get blown up on that one hahaha its cool though. if someone wants to answer the fish thing though to save me the rtouble by all means do it.

They should have 10 of the absolute smartest men in the world of evolution and 10 of the smartest men in the world of creation and they should duke it out to the bitter end.

 

No... The smartest people in the "world of creation" should attempt some science, and then come up with a competing theory based on Evidence. But that hasn't happened because there IS NO evidence for creation. And, the smartest christians in the world by and large have abandoned the creation "model" for explaining the diversity of life. Besides which, when you really think about it, Evolution, by definition, cannot truly be at odds with creation. You see, Evolution says nothing at all about how life got here, which is what creation attempts to explain. It only talks about what happened after life got here.

 

Furthermore, I can practically guarantee that every counter-argument you find on a christian site is not a competing idea, but merely a picking-at of an alleged or actual inconsistency or flaw in the Theory of Evolution. It's basically like having a house with a missing or damaged brick, and saying that that house shouldn't be standing, when clearly it is. Or at it's worst, it's like building an identical house, but with a destroyed foundation, and when it fails, claiming that the same thing should happen to the other house, even though, it's foundation is nowhere near as damaged as the one that failed.

[hereticzero]

Hi, I just created this acct upon the urges of a co-worker and friend. I am curious as to how anyone can really believe that evolution is actually fact, and can throw out some reasons why they believe it to be so. I dont want to start a bash fest or anything like that, just a convo in how they believe in evolution, then see how some ppl that are one here might be supporters of creation science. On a side note I am curious as to why evolution is the only science tought in schools when you really cant factually 100% prove evolution, or creation science, to me both sides should be tought, with neither being right or wrong. It seems to me that Evolution takes as much or more faith to believe than creation in 7 days. (just my thoughts)

There are fact-based data to research evolution compared to the faith-based creationist view. I never lump creationist with science as it legitimizes the fantasy of creationist, in their minds. What evidence do you have in the creationist version? The Supreme Court has already overturned the idea of teaching Christian creationism alongside evolution. Evolution is based on factual data whereas creationist is totally fantasy based on what they 'believe to be true' and no facts.

 

Whose creation will you teach along side evolution? Hindu? Christian? Buddhist? Native Indian? What makes you think Christians only know how the earth was made? There has never been a majority of religions on this planet that claim the Christian Creationist view is correct. It is as much a fable as any other religion.

[Guest Jdiddy]

I see what you guys are saying, however for every link you give, I can bring up several christian sites with information they say is evidence against evolution. They should have 10 of the absolute smartest men in the world of evolution and 10 of the smartest men in the world of creation and they should duke it out to the bitter end. I would def like to see that. How old is the world to you guys? If we are constantly evolving then how can you say that the shark has evolved all it needs to to live in its environment? I havent looked to find the answer about the extinct fish, still curious, guess ill have to look it up really quick, i just thought you guys might save me the trouble. Evolution is like 9/11 you guys (meaning the experts) are really good about scrambling and changing things around to make the story stick and seem viable-lol I know im gonna get blown up on that one hahaha its cool though. if someone wants to answer the fish thing though to save me the rtouble by all means do it.

They should have 10 of the absolute smartest men in the world of evolution and 10 of the smartest men in the world of creation and they should duke it out to the bitter end.

 

No... The smartest people in the "world of creation" should attempt some science, and then come up with a competing theory based on Evidence. But that hasn't happened because there IS NO evidence for creation. And, the smartest christians in the world by and large have abandoned the creation "model" for explaining the diversity of life. Besides which, when you really think about it, Evolution, by definition, cannot truly be at odds with creation. You see, Evolution says nothing at all about how life got here, which is what creation attempts to explain. It only talks about what happened after life got here.

 

Furthermore, I can practically guarantee that every counter-argument you find on a christian site is not a competing idea, but merely a picking-at of an alleged or actual inconsistency or flaw in the Theory of Evolution. It's basically like having a house with a missing or damaged brick, and saying that that house shouldn't be standing, when clearly it is. Or at it's worst, it's like building an identical house, but with a destroyed foundation, and when it fails, claiming that the same thing should happen to the other house, even though, it's foundation is nowhere near as damaged as the one that failed.

 

 

 

If there are in fact holes in this "scientific fact" then shouldnt it be revised or maybe even totally scrapped as an idea until its perfected? I mean if there is evolution as you all say then it will continue to occur either way right? Why not nail down the dang thing so full proof that it doesnt have some things that pose legitimate questions shouldnt they be addressed? I dont pretend to be an expert on this subject by extent of the imagination, although i do want to learn more on both sides to blow you guys out of the water lol Im not there yet though? Maybe there is no creation "science" so to speak as you all say, however it does pose points in which the mainstream idea or fact as you all like to point out does have some holes. Thats i guess the whole point that I want to make.

[Dhampir]

If there are in fact holes in this "scientific fact" then shouldnt it be revised or maybe even totally scrapped as an idea until its perfected? I mean if there is evolution as you all say then it will continue to occur either way right? Why not nail down the dang thing so full proof that it doesnt have some things that pose legitimate questions shouldnt they be addressed? I dont pretend to be an expert on this subject by extent of the imagination, although i do want to learn more on both sides to blow you guys out of the water lol Im not there yet though? Maybe there is no creation "science" so to speak as you all say, however it does pose points in which the mainstream idea or fact as you all like to point out does have some holes. Thats i guess the whole point that I want to make.

I knew you would ask this. There are a few inconsistencies that can't yet be explained, or problems for which there are a number of solutions, competing to be the best possible explanation. However, as often as Creationist may seize on these mostly minor internal issues, they just as frequently exploit strawmen, or talk about things that have long since been cleared up. Problems that were addressed by science decades ago in some cases.

 

One example of this is Piltdown man, among others. it was a nearly complete fossil of what science at first thought to be one of our common ancestors. It turned out to be a hoax. As it happens, Creationists will act as though one mistake years ago undoes all the work that's been put into studying and refining our understanding of Evolution. They fail however, to acknowledge that it was science itself that uncovered this hoax, thus proving it's self-correcting nature.

 

If you remember nothing else, remember this: Science exists in lieu of proof, not because of it. It exists to find answers, not to already have perfect, complete understanding from the outset.

[florduh]

Evolution is wrong links.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

 

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

So here are some links with info that says evolution is wrong, I've seen a glimpse at your side of the issue today and its been fun, I would be curious to hear what you all have to say about the topics discussed in these links though.

 

Well, I don't know what to say to you. The abovetopsecret site is a laughable conspiracy-nut kind of place, and I'm not familiar with the other site, but I read it too.

 

Basically, the ones denying evolution are simply arguing that X can't possibly be true because Y. I just showed you transitional fossils (missing links) that actually exist in the real world. That is hard evidence that a fish can and did evolve into a bird at one point - the transition that exhibits traits of both species exists. That is real evidence.

 

 

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

 

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

 

I can't believe people are still using this "argument." The others are just as off-base, but let's look at this old favorite.

 

First, evolutionists do not claim that organisms "rearrange themselves" into higher forms. The basic flaw in the 2nd Law argument is that it applies only to closed systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way conflicts with the process of evolution of increasingly complex forms in the open system of the planet. Do you know the difference between closed and open systems?

 

As always, there is nothing new presented on the sites you provided. They are the usual collection of misrepresentations of evolutionary thought and misunderstanding of physics.

[Legion]

I don't have any reservations about admitting that I do not "perfectly" understand evolution.

 

I also don't mind admitting that I don't thoroughly understand the process of learning.

 

But we know that learning occurs despite the fact that we do not thoroughly and explicitly understand it.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Jdiddy I like the idea that someone had (I wish I could remember who) about turning the tables.

 

Let me, kindly I hope, put some pressure on you.

 

Let's throw out and disregard evolution for a moment. To hell with evolution.

 

What is your hypothesis (guess) about how all the various species came to be? And, this is very important, what predictions does this hypothesis make so that we may verify it?

 

I believe that created many different types of creatures with each kind having a unique DNA genome capable of producing many diff variations of that kind, Yet the potential for variation was not infinite but limited and fixed,no new information is ever added through either mutation or recombination of DNA.

no matter how many times you reshuffle the genes of a canine, you cannot produce a line of qualitatively new creatures that become a new kind such as primates.

[Guest Davka]

I think im hearing here is that Evolution cant be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt

Nothing can be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt." Why do you hold evolution to this impossible standard? Gravity cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't cause you to think you can fly, does it?

 

Here's the thing: Evolution has far more evidence to support it than the Bible or creationism has. Like, by a factor of millions.

 

I'm going to do what I said I wouldn't because I'm bored.

 

In science, step one is to observe. Look around, see what's going on, take some notes.

 

Step two is to come up with a possible explanation of why things are happening the way they are. This is called a hypothesis. Lots of people mistake a hypothesis for a theory, but they are not the same. In order for your hypothesis to become a theory, it has to pass some tests.

 

The way to test a hypothesis is this: you come up with a prediction based on your hypothesis. I might hypothesize that there are so many SUVs in the South because there are more fat people in the South, for example. I would then predict that, on average, fat people in the South drive SUVs more than they drive sedans. Now I have a testable hypothesis - and this is important, because if it's not testable, it's not science.

 

You must be able to create a predictive model in order to test a hypothesis.

 

So let's say I set up an experiment to test my SUV hypothesis. I'm going to hang out in a parking lot all day and count the people going in and out, taking notes on whether they are fat and what kind of car they drive. And - ta-da! I discover that yes, fat people are statistically more likely to drive SUVs into my parking lot than other cars. I have the foundations for a new predictive model of Fat SUV drivers. And, like a good scientist, I publish my results in the Journal of Scientific Fatness.

 

But this is where tragedy strikes. Because other scientists read my report, and they decide to set up their own experiments, to test my theory. One of them goes to a different parking lot, and gets conflicting results. Another polls people who are shopping for cars, asking what factors influence their decisions. And both of these scientists publish their results, which disprove my original hypothesis. It is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid theory. My life is over.

 

This is the way to get from observation to theory:

 

1) Observe

 

2) Hypothesize.

 

3) Predict.

 

4) Test your hypothesis.

 

5) If it accurately predicts, you have a predictive model. Publish for peer review.

 

6) Get other people to repeat your experiment. if it passes, then

 

7) Come up with more, different predictions based on your hypothesis, and test it some more.

 

A hypothesis only becomes a theory after it has been established to have reliable, repeatable predictive power. When many different people have devised many different ways to test the hypothesis and it proves to be an accurate predictor of outcomes, then and only then is it accepted as a theory.

 

But it doesn't end there.

 

Theories are continually undergoing more and more tests as we learn more. Sometimes theories are revised, or scrapped altogether when new information is discovered. This is what a scientific theory really is: a predictive model that has proven accurate to a large group of people over a long period of time.

 

Evolutionary theory has done this. It has also been revised as new information comes in. Darwin's original theory has not held up in all areas, because science has made new discoveries about the way the mechanism works. These new revisions have fine-tuned the predictive model.

 

Evolution says "if this is true, then we should find X type of fossils." And we do. It says "if this is true, then amino acids should behave in a particular fashion under certain conditions." And they do. The predictions based on evolutionary theory can be tested.

 

So-called "creation science," on the other hand, has no predictive model at all. I cannot think of a single prediction made and tested by a Creationist. I've never heard of such a thing. That's because it's not even a theory, it's just an opinion. Not only can it not be "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt," it can't be proven at all.

 

Asking schools to treat evolutionary theory - a predictive, proven model - as equivalent to an untestable opinion based on nothing more than a collection of ancient stories is ludicrous. Yes, I think they should teach the difference between them in school. No, I don't think they should have equal weight. One is provable and predictive, the other is not.

[uncleamin]

Could you elaborate on the difference between an open and closed system. I was always taught the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was good evidence against evolution and would like more info on why it is not please.

[Dhampir]

This guy is a christian by the way. Evolution does in no way affect his faith. Here' his channel

[Legion]

Jdiddy I like the idea that someone had (I wish I could remember who) about turning the tables.

 

Let me, kindly I hope, put some pressure on you.

 

Let's throw out and disregard evolution for a moment. To hell with evolution.

 

What is your hypothesis (guess) about how all the various species came to be? And, this is very important, what predictions does this hypothesis make so that we may verify it?

 

I believe that created many different types of creatures with each kind having a unique DNA genome capable of producing many diff variations of that kind, Yet the potential for variation was not infinite but limited and fixed,no new information is ever added through either mutation or recombination of DNA.

no matter how many times you reshuffle the genes of a canine, you cannot produce a line of qualitatively new creatures that become a new kind such as primates.

Okay, but I can't see where you made any predictions. Without predictions we have no way to verify.

 

I am really trying here Jdiddy, but I'm not sure why. Let me stop being so formal for a moment and speak plainly to you.

 

I think when many religious people see the word "evolution" they see that they are being accused of being a "monkey" or "ape". And this offends them.

 

Is this happening with you? Please be honest.

[Dhampir]

Could you elaborate on the difference between an open and closed system. I was always taught the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was good evidence against evolution and would like more info on why it is not please.

People incorrectly assert that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that no action can result in there being as much energy as there was at the beginning of the action. There is always less energy at the end.

 

where this is inaccurate is in that, with a closed system, all the useable energy is present in the system, meaning that for every action that takes place there's always going to be less energy. In an open system however, more energy can be inserted into one part of the system from something else. The relationship between the Earth and the Sun represents and open system, meaning that the Earth is constantly getting new energy from the Sun, in order to carry out new actions. That's the part that creationists constantly overlook.

 

The sun itself is a closed system, meaning that as far as we can tell, the sun is not getting any new energy from somewhere else. Meaning that when it uses up all the energy it has, that's it.