Originally posted by thorvo
Yah, if specie 2 is an intermediate link between 1 and 3, but species are quite different animals. There had to be a gradual change between them. Thats the animal I am asking for, half of specie 1 and half of specie 3. Dont beat around the bush. You keep coming up with this that each specie is an intermediate link, but how about between them? a fish cant have ...[text shortened]... o. just cause there are different species doesnt mean a thing that they evolved from each other.

Correct a fish cannot produce a turtle - irrelavant point, but well done, you are a little bit smarter than I was giving you credit for.

You seem to expect 1 intermediate link between say fish and land animals, or reptiles and birds etc there isn't a single intermediate link between these. However there are many many species inbetween which progressively change little things hear and there which all add up to big modifications.

We are talking about intermediate links i.e. species 2 between 1 and 3, whereas you seem to think there is only 1 species between species 1 and 456,432.

Please grab any book on vertebrate evolution and read before you type next time, you will see many intermediary steps between the distant taxa you speak of.

The simple concept you continually fail to grasp stands "every species is an intermediate species"

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvo
[b]I know enough about evolution, even if I dont know all, to know it isnt something that grabs me nor that is really likely.

The fact that the very basic notions articulated in this thread seem novel to you indicates very
clearly that you don't know very much about Evolution at all. Yet, you already know it is un bility that such new information
might cause you to change what you belief.

Nemesio[/b]

I know some, I am not an expert. But who are you to say how much I know? Your comparison of Mark doesnt compare to me, so I suggest you stop using it.

Just cause I am discussing a topic I am not going to believe in doesnt mean I am closeminded. Discussing is different than believing. Yes, I dont know a LOT, but I do know some and whether I want to believe in it or not doesnt have anything to do with me being closeminded about it.

I dont understand why you start attacking me about being "close-minded" just because I say I have no intention of believing in evolution. We are here to discuss, and that doesnt mean convert. So I suggest you just knock it off because frankly, I am getting tired of your statements that have no points in common. I know how much I know of evolution, and I know whether its enough for me to believe or not believe. You seem to think open-minded people are those who change beliefs, and that if someone doesnt, then they are closeminded. Well on that point you arent correct, because I am here to discuss, not to change beliefs. Are you going to believe in God or the Bible? If not, then you are being closeminded. Is that fair or accurate? no, and it isnt with me either. I am not going to respond to anymore of your comments on this. Its your way of attacking me because you cant attack what I say.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]Today we have a large variety of species, and they can now interbreed with each other.
Have you ever seen a rhinoceros and a bottle-nosed dolphin getting it on? Me neither. Only species that are close enough to their evolutionary point of divergence are capable of interbreeding.

Right now, there are only one cell organisms, trilobites, p ...[text shortened]... e today? We are still evolving. Once again, humans are [b]not the pinnacle of evolution.[/b]

True, but how is it that there is a dolphin or a rhinoceros? my point is how they evolved, not how they interbreeded, to create intermediate links.

Yes, they are unicellular ogranisms. And?

I know just becuse I find something hard to believe doesnt make it untrue, but you totally avoided my question.

As I said before, this was an example, not the exact order. If you want, Ill find one thats more the exact order. My question is where are the intermediate links between each specie? because evolution states that things are evolving, at some time one animal must have been at one time part this and part that. where are those fossils? and dont come up with interbreeding cause this is about evolving.

Yes, I know how evolution works. But where are those remains that show the animal part of one kind of specie and part of another? they dont evaporate into thin air. We today see different species and have foudn remains of different species. But where are those remains where an aminal was part this and part that? none of you have explained that.

If I misunderstood something there, then why didnt you state it?

Ok, sorry abotu that. What i was meaning, back in earths past where there werent all the animals we see today only some of them.

Originally posted by timebombted
Correct a fish cannot produce a turtle - irrelavant point, but well done, you are a little bit smarter than I was giving you credit for.

You seem to expect 1 intermediate link between say fish and land animals, or reptiles and birds etc there isn't a single intermediate link between these. However there are many many species inbetween which progressiv ...[text shortened]... imple concept you continually fail to grasp stands "every species is an intermediate species"

Maybe I shoudl find somewhere the exact order of what species evolved into what species until today. then I can debate with better accuracy.

Species may be intermediate links, but to what? lots of species themselves are quite different than other species. so what are those animals inbetween those big differences? also, could you find me a site that has the order of what species evolved into what species? i think our discussion will go much better. Ill look too.

Originally posted by timebombted

The simple concept you continually fail to grasp stands "every species is an intermediate species"[/b]

I havent failed to grasp it, its just not the kind of intermediate link I am talking about. I am talking about the link that is half of one specie and half of another. fish evolved into frogs, so where is that intermediate link thats half fish, and half frog? or reptiles to birds? wheres the link where it is part reptile, and part bird? thats what i am looking for.

Originally posted by thorvo
True, but how is it that there is a dolphin or a rhinoceros? my point is how they evolved, not how they interbreeded, to create intermediate links.

Yes, they are unicellular ogranisms. And?

I know just becuse I find something hard to believe doesnt make it untrue, but you totally avoided my question.

As I said before, this was an example, not the exa ...[text shortened]... meaning, back in earths past where there werent all the animals we see today only some of them.

True, but how is it that there is a dolphin or a rhinoceros? my point is how they evolved, not how they interbreeded, to create intermediate links.
If I understand you correctly you find the idea that creatures as ostensibly diverse as dolphins and rhinoceros sharing a link fantastic. Furthermore, you point to the lack of evidence of some half-dolphin half-rhinoceros creature as a premise in your argument. As I said previously it doesn't make sense to compare today's species because they have continued to evolve from the point of divergence x number of million years ago. At some point in the past there existed a creature that gave rise to both dolphins and rhinoceros.' And no, it did not resemble some Frankensteinian hybrid of the two. Imagine two people starting a journey with a bearing of 1 degree difference. After 50m they will be close enough to talk but after 50km they will be so far apart that they won't be able to see each other.

Yes, they are unicellular ogranisms. And?
Well, they're clearly not... but I think I misunderstood you here. Were you listing reptiles, trilobites, etc. as a subset of unicellular organisms or unicellular organisms, reptiles, etc. as the sum of life on earth 600 million years ago?

I know just becuse I find something hard to believe doesnt make it untrue, but you totally avoided my question.
I don't see the point of exploring the niceties of evolution when you don't understand the broad brushstrokes. Try this for a detailed account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

As I said before, this was an example, not the exact order. If you want, Ill find one thats more the exact order. My question is where are the intermediate links between each specie? because evolution states that things are evolving, at some time one animal must have been at one time part this and part that. where are those fossils? and dont come up with interbreeding cause this is about evolving.
I don't know what you mean by 'interbreeding.' Innumerable fossils are found and continue to be found every day. How do you think we know about the existence of dinosaurs? Even though palaeontologists have so many fossils the fact is that only a tiny fraction of animal and plant remains are preserved as such.

Yes, I know how evolution works. But where are those remains that show the animal part of one kind of specie and part of another? they dont evaporate into thin air. We today see different species and have foudn remains of different species. But where are those remains where an aminal was part this and part that? none of you have explained that.
Yes, for the most part they do vanish into thin air! Some are preserved as fossils between layers of rock (not exactly there for us to trip over). There is no part-this part-that organism. There is however a common ancestor and until you understand this you don't understand evolution. Jesus lived about two thousand years ago. Life on earth began two million times longer ago than Christ existed. Maybe this gives you an idea of the scale of the task that palaeontologists face. Trying to piece together the evolutionary path of life on earth is an enormous undertaking which draws on many academic fields.

Originally posted by thorvo
Just cause I am discussing a topic I am not going to believe in doesnt mean I am closeminded.

Actually, it's the definition of closed-minded. You have decided not to believe in it without
having a reasonable knowledge of it. You've made a decision regardless of what the evidence
might show!

If that's not closed-minded, then what's your definition?

Nemesio

Originally posted by thorvo
wheres the link where it is part reptile, and part bird? thats what i am looking for.

You can see this in dinosaur evolution, actually. The earliest dinosaurs had hips that resembled
reptile hips, while many (but not all) of the later dinosaurs had hips shaped like bird hips. We
also know that some of those bird-hipped dinosaurs had feathers.

But sometimes, you are looking for connections that are not there, like between a rhinoceros and
a dolphin. Their nearest relative is millions of years in the past, back to the earliest origins of
the age of mammals. Dolphins' histories are particularly sketchy (horses, for example are
easier to trace). About 53 million years ago, there were medium-sized hyena-like creatures called
Pakicetidae. These creatures started to live near the water because the dinosaurs no longer
lived and challenged them for the fishy food source. Natural pressures led them to evolve
into becoming increasingly aquatic, so they developed a few things to help it along: a hydro-
dynamic form to increase swim speed, back legs better made for swimming than walking,
a breathing apparatus separate from its swallowing apparatus, ears for hearing underwater,
and so forth. This creature is called the Ambulocetus, and evolved some 3 million years
after the Pakicetidae. Now think of how many generations of how many Pakicetidae were born
to make this happen -- given that these medium-sized animals likely had litters of four or
five pups and that they reproduced at least seasonally, we're talking about literally 100s of
millions of baby Pakicetidae, each competing with members of its species to be the best fed
and reproduce the most. It didn't just happen one day, but gradually over time.

From there, another link in the chain is called the 'Rodhocetus,' appearing another 2 million
years after Pakicetidae. Here we see the fusing of hip and vertebrae, specialized teeth,
shrinking legbones. Now, these guys were only cousins to the line that became the whale/dolphin
line, but we can see how these cousins were evolving to become increasingly aquatic. We have
a gap in the record, but about 40 million years ago, we have the Basilosaurus. Don't let the
suffix 'saurus' fool you; it's a mammal (in the 19th century, they thought it was a lizard). This
animal was longer, sleeker, and nearly legless. It didn't go on land at all, but was not
capable of diving deeply (lungs still too small and body still to puny to withstand the
pressure). Around the same time we have the Dorudon, which has similar characteristics to
the Basilosaurus, but are smaller.

Next up is Squalidon, which started to appear about 33 million years ago. Again, this is a
cousin to the line of dolphins, but we can see the absence of legs and the capacity for sonar.
Around the same time we see the Kentriodon appear, which lived until about 15 million years
ago. These creatures also has no legs, the ability to echolocate, larger brains and possibly
the higher social capacities that we see in modern dolphins.

So, here's your tour from ancient land animal to dolphin. Yes, the fossil record is not complete,
but it's hardly obscure.

Here are some pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squalodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentriodon

Now, what reason would you have to disbelieve this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by thorvo
Maybe I shoudl find somewhere the exact order of what species evolved into what species until today. then I can debate with better accuracy.

Species may be intermediate links, but to what? lots of species themselves are quite different than other species. so what are those animals inbetween those big differences? also, could you find me a site that has the ...[text shortened]... hat species evolved into what species? i think our discussion will go much better. Ill look too.

OK - Try http://tolweb.org/tree/ I believe this is some of the most accurate information we have on phylogenies.

There are examples of the transitional species I think you are talking about, for example "Archaeopteryx".

However, the transition is not simply Species 1 = Reptile, 2 = Archaeopteryx, 3 = Bird.

It is more likely Speicies 1 = Reptile, 587 = Archaeopteryx, 1673 = Bird. These are just arbitrary numbers of course, but the transitions are slow with small changes each time, which is why every species inbetween is intermediate in relation to the previous and the next.

Definitely check out the link its a great site with a wealth of current information.

Originally posted by timebombted
However, the transition is not simply Species 1 = Reptile, 2 = Archaeopteryx, 3 = Bird.

It is more likely Speicies 1 = Reptile, 587 = Archaeopteryx, 1673 = Bird. These are just arbitrary numbers of course, but the transitions are slow with small changes each time, which is why every species in between is intermediate in relation to the previous and the next.

This is an excellent, if not oft accentuated point. I was remiss not to make clearer mention of it
in my post above.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is an excellent, if not oft accentuated point. I was remiss not to make clearer mention of it
in my post above.

Nemesio

Apologies, I replied before reading your very detailed and accurate post.

Regards
Ted

Originally posted by thorvo
I hope I was clear enough. This is the last time I explain this.

Are you looking for the names of every species that ever existed? Are you looking for a particular species that was intermediate between one particular species in the past and one species currently alive today?
What information do you want? The currently accepted species name? An actual fossil?

1. Obviously I cannot present a living animal that fits your requirements because you want something that lived in the past.
2. There are plenty of fossils of creatures that represent various branches of the tree of life. Every one of those fossils is either a link between its ancestors and its decedents or a dead end (ie it had no decendents).
3. If we accept that mammals descended from reptiles which descended from amphibians (I don't know how accurate that it) then a reptilian species from the appropriate date would fit your definition of a 'link species'. Of course we could not be sure from a given fossil whether it was a direct ancestor of ours or one of the unsuccessful side branches.
4. You have specifically requested the name of an intermediary species between a reptile and a mammal. It is not my field so I do not know the names, but if you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
You will almost certainly find a few.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Actually, it's the definition of closed-minded. You have decided not to believe in it without
having a reasonable knowledge of it. You've made a decision regardless of what the evidence
might show!

If that's not closed-minded, then what's your definition?

Nemesio

No offense, but will you be quiet? I am sick and tired of hearing you and your stupid closemindedness. If you want to harp on people, then do it else where. The science forum is not for that. I know how much of evolution I know, and I know whether its enough for me to decide if I will accept evolution or not. And there is virtually no evidence for evolution. All it is is stuff that serves as a COUD be evidence, or COULD show this happened, or COULD be used to suggest this. there is no concrete scientific proof, nothing to back it up. Evolutionists see a specie that has characteristics similar to other species and says its an intermediate link, or it shows how they evolved from each other. does that garantee it is a link? no. all of it is COULD be. You have posted no evidence to support evolution. You think I dont know much about evolution. Well let me tell you you are wrong, simple as that. I am not going to debate with someone who likes to attack a person without really knowing much, if anything, about them!

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]True, but how is it that there is a dolphin or a rhinoceros? my point is how they evolved, not how they interbreeded, to create intermediate links.
If I understand you correctly you find the idea that creatures as ostensibly diverse as dolphins and rhinoceros sharing a link fantastic. Furthermore, you point to the lack of evidence of some half- ...[text shortened]... path of life on earth is an enormous undertaking which draws on many academic fields.[/b]

I wasnt the one who brought up dolphins and rhinoceros.

Sorry, i think i got mixed up with the meaning of unicellular.

I tried the link, but frankly, I see no evidence other than the theory of evolution. As for dating, how can they date animals back millions of years ago? They need to have remains for that, and even if they did, how reliable are those dating methods?

Lots of ppl were talking about species interbreeding to form intermediate links, but that has nothign to do with evolving. nm. Yes, I know lots of fossils are found, but I am reffering to fossils that show the link between different species. After all, if species evolved from each other, then there should be lots of intermediate links. get it?

If there is no part this specie adn part another specie, then how is evolution accurate?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You can see this in dinosaur evolution, actually. The earliest dinosaurs had hips that resembled
reptile hips, while many (but not all) of the later dinosaurs had hips shaped like bird hips. We
also know that some of those bird-hipped dinosaurs had feathers.

But sometimes, you are looking for connections that are not there, like between a rhinoceros a ...[text shortened]... /Kentriodon

Now, what reason would you have to disbelieve this?

Nemesio

First of all, you have no assurity or certainty that these animals are related to other animals because they have some similarities. They COULD be, but that doesnt garantee anything and is thus no solid proof. Yes, nature does affect a creature, but not in the way of making it form legs and arms out of fins. How ever long in the water I may be, it wont cause my legs to grow into fins. The idea is ridiculous. Have you any evidence it actually happened? Just cause dinosaurs had hips shaped like bird hips doesnt mean a thing. That is NO GARANTEE. How do you know those creatures started to live near the water? How do you know the water caused them to change to become an entirely different specie? A fish, if thrown out on land, will die. It's lungs are not for air, they are for water. How in the world is it going to adapt to air if thats not what its body is made for? another stupid idea. The fish will die. and how will it mate and keep living on land? If all the world goes into water and starts trying to breathe, do you think there might be one who survives and has babies and then those babies adapt to the water and get lungs for water instead of air? that would be the most brainwashed logic I have ever heard. btw, I thought sea animals developed into land animals, not the other way around? how will water molecules cause an organism to start growing a fin or water lungs? An animal will change within its own specie, but never will it become an intirely different specie. There is no scientific evidence that species can change the number of chromosone within the DNA. It is fixed. different species have different number of chromosones, so how did they evolve from each other?