Happy Atheist Forum

Evolutionists claim that mutation (and some other uncontrolled factors) do the change (if it happened) in evolving species

Every genetic mutation involving form or function observed in laboratories has either been fatal, crippling, or self-reversing
There is an overwhelming tendency of organisms to suffer, rather than benefit from mutation.
Most mutations do not transfer into other generations

Where are the fossil records for all of the unselected species?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.supload.com%2Fthumbs%2Fdefault%2Ffrog2.jpg&hash=8f5b0561d91600512f8f6430631c243b61e56732) (http://s3.supload.com/free/frog2.jpg/view/)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.supload.com%2Ffreeimg%2Ffrog2.jpg%2Fview&hash=b414b1c3e27eda825c4045b1693f0551340c9a15) (http://www.supload.com/q.php)
(https://www.supload.com/s.gif)My question is not about distinct animals, it is about fossils of species that don't fall into the line of selected evolution
for example while a fin is evolving into a leg, or a hand evolving into a wing; as claimed by evolution nature selects some/fit mutations (out of many/unfit others)

Why we did not find just a single fossil record of such un-selected species?
for example a leg facing backwards, a creature with 3 eyes, a creature with 7 fingers, and generations of them as well

You can not say it won't survive, because its (presumed) ancestor had almost no leg and it survived (to evolve)
If you said, they never existed, then evolution is very smart to foretell which animal will evolve into something beneficial  :hmm:

Quote from: "Messenger"Why we did not find just a single fossil record of such un-selected species?

Since fossils are relatively rare.

Luckily we can observe unfavourable mutations in live beings.

Quote from: "Messenger"Evolutionists claim that mutation (and some other uncontrolled factors) do the change (if it happened) in evolving species

Every genetic mutation involving form or function observed in laboratories has either been fatal, crippling, or self-reversing
There is an overwhelming tendency of organisms to suffer, rather than benefit from mutation.
Most mutations do not transfer into other generations

Where are the fossil records for all of the unselected species?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.supload.com%2Fthumbs%2Fdefault%2Ffrog2.jpg&hash=8f5b0561d91600512f8f6430631c243b61e56732) (http://s3.supload.com/free/frog2.jpg/view/)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.supload.com%2Ffreeimg%2Ffrog2.jpg%2Fview&hash=b414b1c3e27eda825c4045b1693f0551340c9a15) (http://www.supload.com/q.php)
(https://www.supload.com/s.gif)My question is not about distinct animals, it is about fossils of species that don't fall into the line of selected evolution
for example while a fin is evolving into a leg, or a hand evolving into a wing; as claimed by evolution nature selects some/fit mutations (out of many/unfit others)

Why we did not find just a single fossil record of such un-selected species?
for example a leg facing backwards, a creature with 3 eyes, a creature with 7 fingers, and generations of them as well
 

You can not say it won't survive, because its (presumed) ancestor had almost no leg and it survived (to evolve)
If you said, they never existed, then evolution is very smart to foretell which animal will evolve into something beneficial  :hmm:

This is exactly[/b] the reason why I no longer bother to debate this with people who believe as you do, Messenger. You truly, truly, have no idea whatsoever about evolution. From the very meaning of the theory, to the simplest, most basic biological functions, to the most complex mechanisms....you are absolutely and overwhelmingly clueless. This is not a personal attack on your overall intelligence or ability to learn, or even of your participation in the forum, but a valid statement of your ignorance of this topic (look up the word ignorance before replying that I'm flaming you, please).

You simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. Period. Yet, here you are trying to argue this theory as if you know something. You can't even properly cite references from "Answers in Genesis" or whatever other ludicrous source you're getting this information from. It is profoundly sad to see someone do this.

Willful ignorance is the most devastating example of one of the weaknesses of the human race. For all of our ability to think and reason, this one thing holds us back and hurts us more than greed, or lust, or any other fallibility.

Until you show a desire to actually discuss this topic without this willful ignorance, you are, in my opinion, no longer even worth responding to. I know people will continue to do so, and more power to them. I wish them luck in the endeavor.

On the other hand, if you do not start responding to the evidence presented to you from people who do know what they're talking about (like Squid for example), then you will be skating on thinner ice than you already are, and will face being banned from the forum completely. Do not continue this pattern of ignoring those who take the time to thoughtfully respond to you, while making nonsensical new arguments.

You've now started a second thread on this topic without replying to the valid points made to you by people who are both educated in biology and know a great deal about the topic. You don't get another chance after this.

Please read the hundreds of other threads on this forum about evolution first before starting another thread about evolution. I'm fed up about that topic myself and have no intentions to respond to any illogical remarks about evolution from people who don't understand evolution;  who have no interest in understanding evolution and who are not willing to learn from people who do understand it.

Your basis is flawed - most mutations are neutral. A mutation does not necessarily translate into a change of the organisms phenotype - basic genetics (do some research on Hox genes and neutral theory).  You also seem to be confusing development with evolution and forgetting a basic tenet of evolution - individuals don't evolve populations do.  Also, the claim that "patterns" or organized structures and the like need a creator is baseless as well:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marginalrevolution.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2Fsnowflake1_1.jpg&hash=a7e34f8aa0eb391b53ff33dbc1902eda10d2da95)

Thanks for the laugh Messenger. Are you a buddy of youngblacksmart?

Let's hear it for Squid, who constantly enlightens the ignorant.    I don't think I would have the patience to deal with Creationists. The concept of evolution is over their head and most likely always will be.

You really, really don't understand evolution do you.

Given that this is little more than a transitional fossils denial I will simply post another of my articles for you to avoid (since that seems to be your speciality):

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Transitional Species v3.0
By
Fallen Angel

Introduction
Young Earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that life on Earth has evolved rather than be divinely created, dispute evolution on the basis that there should be evidence of transitional species. In fact some sites (such as "Answers In Genesis") go as far as to insist there must be "billions of transitional fossils" if evolution was correct and not merely "a handful of questionable transitions".

Discussion
In posing this supposed flaw in the fossil record creationists misunderstand one vital concept and that is that all non-current species (with the exception of the ultimate common ancestor) are transitional. Each and every species noted in the evolutionary tree are of a form that is transitional between its ancestor and its descendants.

The problem lies in the fact that once named; an animal (usually extinct) becomes regarded, as a species in itself so, where there were once two species with no transitional, there is, once the transitional is found and named, now three species with two transitional gaps. Any objective observer will realise that this process can continue ad infinitum and that no matter what explanation is offered, in the eyes of the lay critic, there will never be a satisfactory transitional filling the gap between any given species.

So what is a fossil? A fossil is, quite simply, the fossilised remains of a once living creature but how does fossilisation occur?

To allow for fossilisation the remains of a creature must be rapidly covered by (sometimes even killed by) sediments which often occurred when animals were washed into water or lived in lakes and seas as the remains would then have been rapidly covered by sediment at the bottom. This accounts for the higher frequency of fossilisation of sea-creatures and animals that may have lived close to such bodies of water. Once covered by sediment the flesh and skin of the cadaver almost always completely rotted away and, as more sediments began to build on the remaining bones over the following centuries, minerals from surrounding water began to percolate through the rock and into the porous bone structures altering the bone to a petrified state.

In some cases acidic water would dissolve the bone completely leaving a natural "mould" so that the original shape could be discerned by pouring rubber into the "mould" and extracting it and other times the "moulds" filled with natural sediments and became a perfect rock-like replica of the original skeleton. In very rare cases a carcass may have been covered in such a way that it naturally mummified  and even skin & folds in the flesh may have been preserved ... the colour, however, of these animals will likely always remain a mystery to us.

So what is a transitional fossil? As it implies a transitional fossil is one that lies, in evolutionary terms, between two species and exhibits some features of one, some of the other and possibly some features that are at a stage of development some way between the two. In an ideal world the transitional would be unearthed in a location (in terms of the geologic column) at an appropriate position between the evidence for the species it is transitional too however there is no reason why a transitional fossil must only give rise to one descendent or that it must appear to die out as soon as it has done so.

By it's very nature the fossil record is incomplete ... that is the nature of fossilisation and the rather unusual conditions required for it to occur so for creationists to ask where are the "billions of transitional fossils" in the way that they do borders upon complete stupidity.

That said there are a vast number of fossils that are regarded as being true transitionals.

De Ricqles (1983) and Horner et al. (1992) document possible cases of gradual evolution and some lineage's that show abrupt appearance or stasis. Examples are several species from the early Permian (reptiles such as Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, Romeria) and the "Montana" site (a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous) where many excellent transitional dinosaur were found including:

* Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus.
* Many transitional lambeosaurids (50 plus specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
* A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
* A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.

These transitional animals, apparently lived over a 500,000-year period, but were known from a much larger site ("the Judith River Formation") where a 5 million-year evolutionary stasis occurred with the subsequent, and very abrupt, appearance of many new forms. Evidence indicates that climactic changes acted in such a way the sea level rose during the 500,000-year period temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. Evolution can proceed very rapidly within isolated populations and, when sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site.

The "missing link" ER1470 ("Lucy" or Australopithecus afarensis) was found by two independent anthropologists i.e. Donald Johanson (Hadar region, Ethiopia) and Mary Leakey (Laetolil, Tanzania). Lucy's obstetrics demonstrate that she would have been able to give birth to a baby no larger than a newborn male chimp or orang-utan and that that new baby's brain would have comprised around 10% of its total weight. Other facets of Lucy's structure (such as her hind limbs being adapted for walking whilst her toes were longer and more curved, her fingers longer and better adapted for grasping branches and trunks), arguably a direct or close ancestor of mankind indicate her transitional nature in comparison to modern man.

Archaeopteryx, the transitional fossil oft claimed by creationists to be a forgery, is another transitional between reptile and bird ... the German specimen, for example, has feathers and dinosaur like teeth. Independent investigators have verified the authenticity of several specimens of the fossil, in response to creationist allegations of forgery, and other investigators have found other specimens of the same fossil organism.

There are excellent skeletons of extinct animals showing transition from primitive fish to bony fish, from fish to amphibian (the first four-legged creatures walked on the ocean bottom, not on land), from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to mammal, from reptile to bird and even from land animal to whale (fossil whales have been found with four legs & whales today still have skeletal components that can be identified as parts of hind legs deep in their flesh whilst their front legs have evolved into flippers).

One, particularly well-defined fossil sequence of transitions documents the evolution of apelike creatures through 6 or more intermediate forms to modern day humans.

The horse, perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence, starts some 55 million years ago with the terrier-sized Eohippus. Eohippus had four toes in front and three in back and, for technical reasons, has since been renamed Hyracotherium. From Eohippus a lineage descended through at least 14 steps, each step being represented by successfully competing animals, right through to the modern horse ( the pony-sized creature designated as Equus) genus to which all modern horses belong.

Conclusion
Creationists believe that gaps in the fossil record "show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilisations, chance discoveries, and immigration events" (Hunt, 1997)
It must be admitted that there are gaps in the fossil record, enough to keep scientists in business for many decades (perhaps centuries) to come, and that most fossil types are extremely rare. Fossilisation, in relative terms, is a rare event as the animal to be fossilised must die in circumstances that bury it in sediment before scavengers or environment can destroy it and then that area must be subject to whatever processes are necessary to lift and expose the remains adequately enough for scientists to be made aware of its existence.

Even though there are gaps the fossil record does demonstrate to us the following:
* An obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil finds to resemble modern species more closely i.e. a temporal - morphological correlation that is highly noticeable and appears to point toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.
* Many chains or branches of genera that appear to connect primitive genera with modern radically different genera and by which major evolutionary change can be traced.
* Large numbers of species-to-species transitions that (often) cross genus & (sometimes) family lines and often result in significant adaptation.
* A lot of gaps. For stratigraphic reasons there must always be gaps and no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record and no rational person expects that the fossil record will ever be close to complete.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to argue that all species are transitional, that humans and other "end-branch" species are not transitional as they have not yet evolved into whatever species they one day will do.

So, to claim that there are no transitional fossils is not a valid interpretation of the available evidence it is, quite simply, wrong. To claim that the gaps in the fossil record are sufficient to disprove evolution simply demonstrates an extreme ignorance of what science is and a wilful disregard of the awesome levels of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

References
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ", Kathleen Hunt (1997)
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (Part 2c)", Kathleen Hunt (1997)
 "5 Major Misconceptions About Evolution", Mark Isaak (1998)
"It's a bird, it's a dinosaur - it's both", Paul Reger (1999)
"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution", Boyce Rensberger (1997)
"The Natural History Book Of Dinosaurs" Tim Gardom & Angela Milner (1993)

I know you want to avoid this so go on ... have fun because you know I am going to enjoy hounding you for it  

Kyu

What Messenger must understand is that evolution is not the same as development.  Each organism that reaches developmental maturity is “fully formed” so to speak.  Therefore the request for an organism with “half a leg” is misguided by a misunderstanding of evolution.  This is one of the many points that people who reject evolution seem to be misinformed upon.  So, please, understand that no scientist is claiming nor did Darwin or Wallace claim that we should find an organism with “half a leg” or the like.

Now, can such phenotypic traits such as legs disappear over time in a lineage? Yes.  We can see this occurring in modern day skinks which gives us insight into the relationship between quadrapedal lizards and snakes.  Take the Alberts Burrowing Skink for example:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creation-vs-evolution.us%2Fvisual-evolution%2Fsnake_legs%2Falberts_burrowing_skink.jpg&hash=69e4b1da64d2af3ee350873e351e9a251e7dab33)

For burrowing reptiles, having large limbs can be a hindrance and therefore because of their ecology, having smaller legs seems to be advantageous and therefore their legs have dwindled in size over time and most likely will eventually be gone as has happened to the ancestors of modern snakes.  And in grass dwelling creatures, an elongated form with miniaturized limbs aids in gliding locomotion (Gans, 1975).

So, is this shown in the fossil record? Yes, it is.  One example is the specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

This image is of A. microbrachis and shows the pectoral girdle and cervical vertebrae:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.tinypic.com%2F5zqgrw8.jpg&hash=020b929b32f671a075479b809c810df2a93e8fce)

This is a drawing of what the specimen would have most likely resembled, notice the reduction in size of the forelimbs â€" which is also shown in the photograph of the fossil specimen above:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2F5y7n8fp.jpg&hash=63c18793e2bcd6ba5b2a2ed091e71dfb62b67286)

This is a photo take directly from the article on the specimen N. rionegrina:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2F4ldhqc2.jpg&hash=11abf2c488cf4022ca93f1ea066622ba3e07916a)

Therefore, as you can see, selective pressures can work to select for smaller limbs or it can work to select for maximal body size as was a prominent trend in many dinosaur species.  Also, you can see that the skinks have fully developed limbs even though they are very small â€" yet they are functional.  Once they reach the point to where they no longer function then they become vestigial as are the hind limbs found in whales.  However, sometimes a case arises where the hindlimbs actually form apart from the musculature and vestigial bone structure of the pelvis and the structure of the terrestrial limbs into “flippers” (Andrews, 1921):

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2FHindlimbs.jpg&hash=33fdb653e72f9c5edf1601e570c5d7613b7aa04e)

This is what is known as an atavism, as noted by Bejder & Hall (2002) in their review:

QuoteLimblessness is polygenic, involving genes with pleiotropic effects... Surprisingly,  genes involved in limb development also function on other developing systems, such as the jaws, teeth, and genitalia...  We might therefore expect genes associated with limb bud development to be retained after limb buds are lost, providing the potential for partial or even complete reappearance of limb elements; recall that condensation can be present even when the skeletal element is not.  An atavism is the reappearance of an ancestral character in an individual within a descendant population (pp. 452).

This is not simple some trumped up hypothesis that atavisms are reappearances of ancestral characteristics.  This has been reproduced in the lab as well.  In 2006, an article in Current Biology detailed a chicken mutant which grew archosaurian type teeth, closely resembling those of modern alligators (Harris, Hasso, Ferguson & Fallon, 2006).

So, as you can see there is a difference between what you’re arguing and what evolutionary biology shows us.   This is the exact problem that fuels the whole “controversy” over evolution â€" simple misunderstanding of evolution by people who think they understand it and then refuse to learn otherwise â€" willful ignorance.  Such attitudes are only serving to hurt us as a nation.

References:

Andrews, R. (1921). A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale. American Museum Novitates (No. 9). New York: The American Museum of Natural History.

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Berger-Dell’mour, H. (1985). The lizard genus Tetradactylus: A model case of an evolutionary process. In K. Schuchmann (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on African vertebrates: Systematics, phylogeny and evolutionary ecology (pp. 495-510).  Bonn, Germany:  Selbstverlag. 495-510.

Gans, C. (1975). Tetrapod limblessness:  Evolution and functional corollaries.  American Zoologist, 15, 455-467.

Harris, M., Hasso, S., Ferguson, M. & Fallon, J. (2006). The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant.  Current Biology, 16, 371-377.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Wonderful posts, Kyu and Squid. Thoroughly enjoyable.

I think we have enough votes to pass sentence, no?  

Messenger, you just don't get it.

Quote from: "McQ"This is not a personal attack on your overall intelligence or ability to learn, or even of your participation in the forum, but a valid statement of your ignorance of this topic (look up the word ignorance before replying that I'm flaming you, please). .

It is not a personal attack because you don't know me, it is a defense for your blind belief (Evolution)

QuotePeriod. Yet, here you are trying to argue this theory as if you know something. You can't even properly cite references from "Answers in Genesis" or whatever other ludicrous source you're getting this information from.

there is no source, because I'm the original source  

QuoteYou've now started a second thread on this topic without replying to the valid points made to you by people who are both educated in biology and know a great deal about the topic.

These are two separate topics, I'll respond to each

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"You really, really don't understand evolution do you.

Given that this is little more than a transitional fossils denial I will simply post another of my articles for you to avoid (since that seems to be your speciality):
 know you want to avoid this so go on ... have fun because you know I am going to enjoy hounding you for it  
Kyu

Thanks, but you are answering an unasked question

Quote from: "Squid"Therefore the request for an organism with “half a leg” is misguided by a misunderstanding of evolution.  This is one of the many points that people who reject evolution seem to be misinformed upon.  

Again you are evading the question by talking about another subject.
I did not ask for a half leg at all
If you claim that fins evolve into legs, then there will be stage of fin, fin that look like leg say by 10% then by 20% then ....... a leg
A fin that looks like a leg by 10% is less than a fin and close to a leg
As Evolution is un-controlled then there must be many other mutations that did not work (unfit or unselected) over generations, then nature selected our fin with 10% leg as it is fitter!

For example if you claim that human hand with 5 fingers is the best for nature, How nature could predict while/before evolving that 5 will be the best
Your only option is to say, there were things with 2,3, 6,7 fingers and those with 5 survived better

Those what I'm asking for and those that you can never find and you can not deny as well, this is your problem  

There is no prediction, no predestined goal - your thinking is backwards.  What we see in nature is the result of selection not a prelude of things yet to come in some goal-oriented way.

You want terrestrial transitions - case example T. roseae.  This specimen represents a crucial link between terrestrial tetrapods and fish. Tiktaalik is a sarcopterygian fish from the Devonian period. It is important in the fish to tetrapod lineage because, as Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins (2006) state:

Quote…[Tiktaalik roseae] represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose (pp. 757)

It represents a specimen linking earlier specimens such as Panderichthys and Elpistostege to the later specimens such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Since most people understand concepts better with visual stimulation, here’s a picture:

Picture 1 shows T. roseae’s position within the lineage:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi86.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk86%2Fsolidsquid%2Fnature04639-f72-1.jpg&hash=775ce7bc13aa806d1cbfa7bba711d98de34865cb)

And another example of why this specimen is important:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi115.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn307%2Fwebmaster99%2Ftiktaalik-roseae.jpg&hash=f515c2314446497a307c8cc92af806a75e31bd0d)

And another:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daylightatheism.org%2Fimages%2Ftiktaalik2.jpg&hash=e04c846c19b104eddb74c53e635c3983de82464f)

These specimens like T. roseae are called transitional in the sense that they connect two important transitional periods in evolution such as the transition to terrestrial vertebrates.

The other examples I gave in the previous post also show a similar gradual selection upon a particular morphology.  

But, what you seem to want is a specimen which is "deformed" or the like which was not beneficial to the selection of that phenotype.  If this is what exactly your wanting then your wanting what is referred to as a pathological specimen.  Then how about a pathological Psittacosaurus with a shorter and stouter fibula which was concluded that the dinosaur could have been impeded but still able to walk (Lu, Kobayashi, Lee & Ji, 2007).  Also pathological dinosaurian eggs have been found from in situ clutches (Jackson, Garrido, Schmitt, Chiappe, Dingus & Loope, 2004).  Or how about an Allosaurus with odd spur formations upon some ribs, bone growth on the 13th dorsal vertebrae amongst other items listed upon this specimen (some abnormalities were determined to be from trauma) (Hanna, 2002).  Or specimens of sauropods with fused vertebrae (Rothschild & Berman, 1991).

References:

Hanna, R. (2002). Multiple Injury and Infection in a Sub-Adult Theropod Dinosaur Allosaurus fragilis with Comparisons to Allosaur Pathology in the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry Collection.  Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22, 79-90.

Jackson, F., Garrido, A., Schmitt, J., Chiappe, L., Dingus, L. & Loope, D. (2004). Abnormal, multilayered Titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) eggs from in situ clutches at the Auca Mahuevo locality, Neuquen Province, Argentina.  Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 24, 913-922.

Lu, J., Kobayashi, Y., Lee, Y. & Ji, Q. (2007). A new Psittacosaurus (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) specimen from the Yixian Formation of western Liaoning, China: the first pathological psittacosaurid.  Cretaceous Research, 28, 272-276.

Rothschild, B. & Berman, D. (1991). Fusion of caudal vertebrae in Late Jurassic Sauropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 11, 29-36.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"You really, really don't understand evolution do you.

Given that this is little more than a transitional fossils denial I will simply post another of my articles for you to avoid (since that seems to be your speciality):
 know you want to avoid this so go on ... have fun because you know I am going to enjoy hounding you for it  
Kyu

Thanks, but you are answering an unasked question

No I don't think I was.

Answer the point made!

Kyu

Messenger, you are asking for fossils of creatures with mutations that weren’t selected by nature, i.e., an early human with 20 fingers. It is not the case that nature somehow realised it wanted 5 fingered humans and selected the protohumans that had 5 fingers.

I'm sure there were a few freak mutations of 20 fingered proto-humans. However, these did not survive perhaps due to selection pressures (their hands, while wonderfully dextrous, were not rugged enough to survive on the African plains for example). Modern humans may get along great with 20 fingers if the trait ever appeared, imagine the penmanship, the typing speed, and flute playing abilities. However, back then, 20 fingers may not have been the best solution, so any people that were born with 20 fingers most likely died and never passed on genes. There was such a massive scarcity of 20 fingered people, lets, for arguments sake say, 1 in a million, and so few animals are fossilised, lets again say, 1 in a million, that the odds of ever finding one of these freaks is really, astronomically low.

This is at least how i interpret your question, the phrasing you often employ is confusing.

N.B. I also wanted to comment on the high calibre of posts in this thread, kyu, squid et al. It makes me proud to associate myself with such upstanding and well educated atheists.

Quote from: "SSY"N.B. I also wanted to comment on the high calibre of posts in this thread, kyu, squid et al. It makes me proud to associate myself with such upstanding and well educated atheists.

Thanks, I'll be here all week ... all contributions welcome

Kyu

Quote from: "Squid"But, what you seem to want is a specimen which is "deformed" or the like which was not beneficial to the selection of that phenotype.  If this is what exactly your wanting then your wanting what is referred to as a pathological specimen.  Then how about a pathological Psittacosaurus with a shorter and stouter fibula which was concluded that the dinosaur could have been impeded but still able to walk (Lu, Kobayashi, Lee & Ji, 2007).  Also pathological dinosaurian eggs have been found from in situ clutches (Jackson, Garrido, Schmitt, Chiappe, Dingus & Loope, 2004).  Or how about an Allosaurus with odd spur formations upon some ribs, bone growth on the 13th dorsal vertebrae amongst other items listed upon this specimen (some abnormalities were determined to be from trauma) (Hanna, 2002).  Or specimens of sauropods with fused vertebrae (Rothschild & Berman, 1991).

Thanks Squid, this is exactly what I was looking for
Your post here proves:
1-That all people who selected option 3 in the pool, don't have a clue about Evolution
2-That you agree with me that Evolution if existed is not intelligent, i.e. selecting fit species out of many unfit ones

Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

Quote from: "Messenger"Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process. In addition you also ignore that all species except first life and end-branch species are transitional ... but then if you'd bothered to read my first response to you in this thread you'd already know that but you're not, since you're not interested in answering you're challengers just spewing your crap across these forums!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few  :brick:

Got it?

Quote from: "Messenger"So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  

Neanderthals. Apparently, they were pretty much unfit in the long run. There are hundreds and thousands of other examples of species that came to a dead end.

EDIT: If you are looking for high degrees of weirdness, siamese twins are a fine example. Or people born with both sets of reproductive organs (to varying degrees) or anything of the sort. Such things can be found in the animal kingdom as well, but the weirder they get, the harder it is for them to make it on their own or as a part of a society. The strongest, the most adaptable and the best made survive. And those stronger still survive them in turn.

Quote from: "Messenger"So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  :brick:

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few  :brick:

Got it?

This is your first day back and you are already trying to get banned, Messenger? Fine by me. It's much easier to ban you for the same violations you keep performing than it is to read your drivel. You continue to illustrate that you simply have no idea whatsoever what evolution is, what natural selection is, what artificial selection is, or what genetics is (biology, geology, physics, blah-blah-blah). Even your analogies aren't accurate.  

 This is an official warning for you to stop obfuscating. You are like one giant Non sequitur. You ran out of chances the instant you began posting the same claptrap. No more. The next ban will be six months, then it will be permanent. Your only reply to this message had better be by illustrating, via your actions, that you will engage in rational, scientific discourse.

Refer to the following post as the reason for this warning. It is but one piece of evidence and it's the only reason I need to administer the warning, despite that you've already provided more than this. It will not be debated. If you don't like it, you may appeal directly to the forum administrator. Any communication to me other than strict compliance with what I have written as your only option will result in immediate banning.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Squid"But, what you seem to want is a specimen which is "deformed" or the like which was not beneficial to the selection of that phenotype.  If this is what exactly your wanting then your wanting what is referred to as a pathological specimen.  Then how about a pathological Psittacosaurus with a shorter and stouter fibula which was concluded that the dinosaur could have been impeded but still able to walk (Lu, Kobayashi, Lee & Ji, 2007).  Also pathological dinosaurian eggs have been found from in situ clutches (Jackson, Garrido, Schmitt, Chiappe, Dingus & Loope, 2004).  Or how about an Allosaurus with odd spur formations upon some ribs, bone growth on the 13th dorsal vertebrae amongst other items listed upon this specimen (some abnormalities were determined to be from trauma) (Hanna, 2002).  Or specimens of sauropods with fused vertebrae (Rothschild & Berman, 1991).

Thanks Squid, this is exactly what I was looking for
Your post here proves:
1-That all people who selected option 3 in the pool, don't have a clue about Evolution
2-That you agree with me that Evolution if existed is not intelligent, i.e. selecting fit species out of many unfit ones

Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

Quote from: "Messenger"So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  

Got it?

Two words for you - bilateral symmetry.

The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

Many species of crabs have two different sized pincers.  Sometimes the claws are even differently shaped.  This allows the crab to use its big claw as a shield for his vulnerable parts while leaving his little claw free to fight with.  In this case an asymmetrical result from a mutated gene was a success and that crab got to stay alive until adulthood and make lots of teeny tiny baby crabs carrying his genes.  

So there's your "deformation" - the freakishly big claw of a crab.  

And no, I don't know why I keep feeding the troll.  I feed the squirrels on my balcony, too, and they pee on my roommate's little plastic table.  I just can't help myself, I guess.

It's obvious that Messenger is a complete and total moron.  He has neither the intelligence nor the education to even understand the excellent information presented here and in many other threads.  This is why he keeps on spamming the same old ridiculous, tired, debunked arguments.  It's the only thing he can understand, so he hangs onto it tooth and nail.  I was brought up to feel sorry for morons, not argue with them.

Messenger, I am truly sorry for you.  I can't even imagine going through life with such a big paper bag on your head and only a tiny little hole cut in it so there's a little light, and then believing that tiny bit of light is from a supernatural fairy in the sky because that's all your tiny little brain is able to comprehend.  It must be like living in Plato's cave but actually refusing the chance to go out into the light.  And that's truly sad.  To think that a living, breathing being with all the powers of intellect that evolved over millions of years to produce a creature that could actually discover and comprehend some of the mysteries of the universe willfully and joyfully throws all that potential out the window is astounding.  It blows the mind.

So don't argue with this guy.  Walk away and give him the only thing he's ever intellectually earned:  pity.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few

You're so hilarious ... oh wait, you're not funny at all. I have no plan to vote in your stupid poll at all.

Quote from: "Messenger"So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all   Got it?

Oh I get it ... that's you making the world a better place by slamming what little brain you have against a brick wall right?

I repeat:

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Fossilisation is NOT a common process. In addition you also ignore that all species except first life and end-branch species are transitional ... but then if you'd bothered to read my first response to you in this thread you'd already know that but you're not, since you're not interested in answering you're challengers just spewing your crap across these forums!

Kyu

Quote from: "Asmodean"EDIT: If you are looking for high degrees of weirdness, siamese twins are a fine example. Or people born with both sets of reproductive organs (to varying degrees) or anything of the sort. Such things can be found in the animal kingdom as well, but the weirder they get, the harder it is for them to make it on their own or as a part of a society. The strongest, the most adaptable and the best made survive. And those stronger still survive them in turn.

This is exactly what I mean (you are the second one to understand, good boy)

If you claim that things evolved from 1 to 123456789
Then at stage 123 we should find 123A, 123B, 123C and only very few of 1234 (because 1234 is the correct/intelligent path)

Your examples are wrong as they did not go through generations
If you can get me an animal (along with his few generations) with one leg facing upwards and the other is not a leg at all (something wired maybe a ball), then I can beleive that mutation caused evolution

But if you can not, you have only 2 choices
1-Evolution happened but intelligently (i.e. with a plan to evolve as it is now)
2-Evolution did not happen at all

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

I agree with that, all of those will survive, but the other should have survived then distinct
But sorry we can not find it, did Theists hide them  :pop:

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

I agree with that, all of those will survive, but the other should have survived then distinct
But sorry we can not find it, did Theists hide them  :pop:

What are you talking about?  Plenty of crabs which are symmetrical exist and everything between crabs with giant, bizarre looking dominant claws and crabs with identically sized claws exist.  The descendants from the common ancestor (crabs with symmetrical claws)have diverged after a strange mutation (asymmetrical claws) which survived.  Both still exist.  Both the original format (symmetrical claws) and the mutated format (asymmetrical claws) exist right now in a multitude of variations.

You can't find them because you are too busy looking at a piece of fiction to look in the oceans, lakes, and streams.  That is the inherent problem with religion.  Religion is the policy of killing curiosity.  No one may look at the world and universe around them, they must look in the book or ask a person who makes a tax free living from having studied the book intensely.  There's a real world out here.  Try looking at it before making an ass of yourself by saying there are no original forms that have survived and descended along with mutated forms that have survived and born offspring through thousands and thousands of generations.

There are fossil records of all sorts of species that didn't work out.  As to finding fossil records of individual, one time only mutations - do you honestly think that everything that lives becomes fossilized?  Every single, individual organism becomes a fossil, really?  The failures get eaten and digested and at least 99.9999999999% of all living things don't become fossils.  Fossilization is a weird fluke.  It's not like some museum curator preserving one of each variation found in nature.  Fossilization is caused by weird accidents of nature that occur maybe one in a hundred million times.  And then the fossil must last through climate change and millions of years of  wear and tear by the elements.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Plenty of crabs which are symmetrical exist and everything between crabs with giant, bizarre looking dominant claws and crabs with identically sized claws exist.

I think this thread is too intelligent for you
Only Squid understood me, but he is still trying to find an answer!
Yes, I know that crabs has symmetrical and unsymmetrical legs, this supports my claim
If Mutation is uncontrolled we must unsymmetrical, unfit, bizarre things that does not work at all

QuoteThere are fossil records of all sorts of species that didn't work out.  As to finding fossil records of individual, one time only mutations - do you honestly think that everything that lives becomes fossilized?

Again you don't understand
If we found fossil of distinct species but all are fit (i.e. in the development line), with the same concept we must find other which did not work but not in the line of development

Those which are like this must be much much more than fit one, so we must find them more than we find others

P.S. your answer means you should vote, not yet found      (Maybe in dreams this will happen)

Quote from: "Messenger"I think this thread is too intelligent for you

Don't insult. It's unbecoming of you.

Ironically, there's nothing intelligent about believing in intelligent design.

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Plenty of crabs which are symmetrical exist and everything between crabs with giant, bizarre looking dominant claws and crabs with identically sized claws exist.

I think this thread is too intelligent for you
Only Squid understood me, but he is still trying to find an answer!
Yes, I know that crabs has symmetrical and unsymmetrical legs, this supports my claim
If Mutation is uncontrolled we must unsymmetrical, unfit, bizarre things that does not work at all

Are you assuming that all mutations are lead to phenotypic change and must be deleterious?

QuoteThere are fossil records of all sorts of species that didn't work out.  As to finding fossil records of individual, one time only mutations - do you honestly think that everything that lives becomes fossilized?

Again you don't understand
If we found fossil of distinct species but all are fit (i.e. in the development line), with the same concept we must find other which did not work but not in the line of development

Those which are like this must be much much more than fit one, so we must find them more than we find others

P.S. your answer means you should vote, not yet found      (Maybe in dreams this will happen)[/quote]

Organisms may be "fit" for their environment but we must also take into consideration that species themselves are not static nor is their environment - everything from climatic change, predation, migration, population radiation, drift and so forth all play a role.

Quote from: "Messenger"Yes, I know that crabs has symmetrical and unsymmetrical legs, this supports my claim
If Mutation is uncontrolled we must unsymmetrical, unfit, bizarre things that does not work at all

We do have unsymmetrical, unfit, bizarre things which don't work.  Unfit, bizarre mutations DIE and don't reproduce.  A whole species doesn't just all mutate at once leaving the possibility of millions of individuals which could get fossilized - mutations are (generally) individual glitches in the reproduction of gamete DNA.  A single creature born with a genetic mutation which makes it unfit isn't likely to become a fossil.  There are species and species of the unfit - the unfit DIE.  That's why they are unfit.  It's not because they aren't pretty to look at it's because they have some kind of deficit which either doesn't allow them to reach reproduction age, doesn't allow them to attract a mate, doesn't allow them to thrive enough to be fertile, or doesn't allow them to compete well enough with other animals which use the same resources.

 As to why animals are not born with, say, a leg on one side and something unrecognizable as a leg or upside down on the other side, I suggest you look on the Internet.  Such unfortunate creatures are born all the time.  In nature they DIE.    

There is a fossil record of all sorts of strange species which, in the long run, didn't work out - unless you have a whole zoo full of dinosaurs and sabre toothed tigers and a few million other extinct species in your back yard.

Individuals that don't work out don't leave a whole species behind as evidence.  If , say, a squirrel is born with a set of perfectly good legs on one side of the body and just little fisted claws on the other side of its body it would never reach adulthood.  Thus, no lopsided, fist-footed squirrel species.  Dead babies don't contribute to the gene pool.

There are plenty of oddball mutations that survive.  Only neutral, beneficial, or late life impact  mutations can get spread species wide.  There's a gene that increases a person's risk of breast cancer.  It's fairly widespread through the human race.  That's because it usually produces its fatal result well after sexual maturity.  

Albinism is another strange mutation which, while not immediately deadly can make such animals stand out to predators, die from sun damage, and can also impair the animal's ability to find mates if the species mating cues are visual.  However, there are some types of albinism which are fairly neutral though odd.  There are three entire breeds of cat which possesses an albinism  mutation.  These cats have temperature-sensitive albinism.  There is also an entire breed of rabbits which have temperature-sensitive albinism.   Temperature-sensitive albinism is carried genetically on the C-locus which is where the gene for complete albinism is also carried.  They all have a mutated form of tyrosinase, the enzyme responsible for producing melanin.  Their tyrosinase only functions at temperatures somewhat lower than the animal's core body temperature.  Thus the parts of the body which experience rapid heat loss such as the ears, noses, feet and tails of the animals darken.  

You would never find evidence of temperature-sensitive albinism or a breast cancer gene in a fossil.  The DNA is gone in fossilized carcasses.  

You look for big, coarse evidence when change occurs in tiny increments and sometimes in ways which don't survive in the fossil record.  The unsuccessful mutations which may have been species wide could be as subtle as temperature-sensitive albinism or a breast cancer gene.  Fossils don't come with a gene map so you could be looking at two profoundly different genetic lines when viewing two fossils with identical bone structures.  

The big, coarse evidence you are looking for such as horribly deformed species of animals - no, they don't exist.  Horribly deformed animals DIE and don't pass on their genes.  Animals which die before reproductive age don't pass on their genes to a whole species.  No mutations which are dominant which have fatal results before reproductive age can reach a species-wide distribution unless they are at the termination and are the reason for the termination of the species.

Quote from: "Messenger"think this thread is too intelligent for you

You are so very funny! I'm quite secure in my intelligence and won't get emotional and react as you'd like me to.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Dead babies don't contribute to the gene pool.

For some reason that really tickled me.  

Quote from: "Messenger"But if you can not, you have only 2 choices
1-Evolution happened but intelligently (i.e. with a plan to evolve as it is now)
2-Evolution did not happen at all

ONLY those two choices..? The both your choices are wrong, so uh... Look for a third one. That would be like... Lemmethink... Evolution as it is presented today is a F-A-C-T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Fact)

Quote from: "Squid"Are you assuming that all mutations are lead to phenotypic change and must be deleterious?

I don't assume anything, and this is the idea
You must assume almost everything if it is unintelligent
Trying to imagine that mutation leads only/mostly to fit species is hilarious  :brick:

Mutation is just an imaginary reason for Evolution
They could not find any other reason so they accepted it, without giving any proofs

Also Theists are trying to refute the whole theory of Evolution and opposing many facts about development, there is no divine book that said specifically that Evolution did not happen (Except for human of course)

So my opinion is that Evolution may happened by intelligently

Quote from: "Messenger"Trying to imagine that mutation leads only/mostly to fit species is hilarious  

Why?  
Completely Unfit equals Death, Death does not equal Reproduction, Not Reproducing equals not Producing a Species.  

Here let's break it down so you could understand it if you weren't a fundie -
Mutations happen.
a. Some mutations are neutral, they neither help nor hinder an animal.
b. Some mutations are beneficial, they give an animal a slight edge.
c. Some mutations are harmful or fatal but not harmful until after the animal reaches maturity, they affect the animal during or after reproductive age.
d. Some mutations are harmful or fatal and affect the animal before reproductive age.
e. Some mutations are a combination of both beneficial and harmful or fatal.
f. Some mutations are dominant.
g. Some mutations are recessive.

Two examples of type a mutations are blue eyes or polydactylism.  
Two examples of type b mutations are lactose tolerance and HIV immunity.
Two examples of type c mutations are Huntington's chorea and Hemochromastosis.
Two examples of type d mutations are  Tay Sachs Disease and Canavan Disease.
Two examples of type e mutation are Sickle Cell anemia and pale skin.


These mutations all exist in the human gene pool.  The human species is both fit and unfit.  We carry mutations from distant or near ancestors which can cause deadly diseases or can cause life saving resistance to diseases or conditions.  We are the example you are looking for.  Nearly every other species also carries within its gene pool that which is fit and that which is unfit.

Regarding organisms with brand new, genetically dominant fatal defects in their genetic material - they will not reproduce.  You will not have an entire species of completely unfit organisms because to become a species reproduction must occur.  Again, dead babies don't contribute to the gene pool.

The dead do not reproduce without the help of modern science.

Quote from: "Messenger"Where are those Alien creatures?

P.S. I don't mean distinct animals, I mean not on the line of development
The Crab example supports my case very much, you can not deny unsymmetrical development
So where are all the unsymmetrical undeveloped animals  

Dead.  
Find any species which reproduces in big batches of offspring, such as crabs.  Now, watch as all the wee little eggs hatch - or don't hatch.  Now watch as most of those wee little crabs die and get eaten or get caught and get eaten.  The 'freaks' and unfit mutations are now likely all dead.  They either died in the egg or died soon after hatching.  

Now, how do the dead crabs reproduce?  Oh, that's right, they don't, because they're DEAD!

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Now, how do the dead crabs reproduce?  Oh, that's right, they don't, because they're DEAD!

Thanks, this is the answer that I wanted

Dead means they existed
You can not claim that all un-selected species died fast, because mutation is unintelligent, it is neither too bad nor too good

If you claim that say good mutations above 40% survived and under 1% died, then what will you do with 39%
i.e. mutations was not fatal or too bad, they must have survived for many generations  

Messenger, I really think you should give this site a look as I think you have some inaccurate ideas about genetics:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Now, how do the dead crabs reproduce?  Oh, that's right, they don't, because they're DEAD!

Thanks, this is the answer that I wanted

Dead means they existed
You can not claim that all un-selected species died fast, because mutation is unintelligent, it is neither too bad nor too good

If you claim that say good mutations above 40% survived and under 1% died, then what will you do with 39%
i.e. mutations was not fatal or too bad, they must have survived for many generations  

They did survive.  They are the slightly different versions of things living now or they are the creatures of which no version still exists.

So, you are saying there is no record of any extinct species?  Every extinct species is what you are looking for.  What about the "giant" koalas which were about 30 kilos instead of 10?  They existed.  They were an offshoot of regular sized koalas.  They were an entire sub-species.  They probably required too much food to survive through lean times.  They are dead and they are a species mutated off of regular koalas.

Neanderthals split off from our common ancestor.  For whatever reason, they died off in areas where we didn't.  In that context they were unfit.  There's another entire 'unfit' species for you.

Where are the mutations, you ask - look around - we are and nearly every other species is.  The humans who weren't resistant to new strains of influenza died out.  If you could travel back in time with a handful of viruses that wouldn't hurt more than inconvenience a modern human you'd probably only need to travel a few hundred years before your handful of viruses would wipe out most of the human species.  There are human beings resistant to the AIDS virus.  If AIDS mutated and became airborne and more virulent for instance (so that even God fearing fundies could get it just by breathing) it would probably eliminate most of the population without the genetic resitance to it within a few hundred years.  The remaining human race would have the new gene and the 'unfit' portion would be gone.  And you could never separate the two by looking at them.

Can you tell from a mineralized skeleton that a child has Tay Sachs disease?  Can you tell from a mineralized bone if its owner was lactose intolerant or not?  Can you tell from a mineralized fossil what color a dinosaur's skin was or whether it had a propensity to develop a fatal disease at maturity?  Can you tell from a mineralized fossil if a dinosaur has a digestive disorder and if you can can you tell if it were genetic or not?  You can't even get DNA from mineralized bones.

Also, do you actually believe every living thing becomes a fossil?  Do you believe that a million years from now every living thing right now will be a fossil?  Living things are organic material.  Organic material decomposes, even bones and shells.  Organic material gets eaten, even bones and shells.  Fossilization is a rarity.  Even if the earth were only 6000 years old and nothing broke down and decayed leaving a record of every individual organism that lived we'd be buried under vast pile of corpses.  If every individual organism becomes a fossil, as Messenger-the-Christian-Fundamentalist insists it does then where are all the fossils of the last six thousand years?  

Where is the fossil to the pressure steamed salmon I ate last night, softened bones and all?  Will people thousands of years from now be able to extract its DNA and know its phenotype and health from what will be left of it after it exits my body and is further broken down by bacteria in the waste treatment plant?  In a year, all evidence of the salmon I ate last night will be completely indecipherable and spread for many miles around.  This is just a slightly faster version of what happens to the vast majority of living things after they die.  Even in a thousand years, the number of creatures living now that will leave recognizable evidence of their existence will be minute.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"They did survive.  They are the slightly different versions of things living now or they are the creatures of which no version still exists.

Sorry, I'm not looking for those on the correct line of development, if you have only that, then evolution is very intelligent

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"They did survive.  They are the slightly different versions of things living now or they are the creatures of which no version still exists.

Sorry, I'm not looking for those on the correct line of development, if you have only that, then evolution is very intelligent

There is no correct or incorrect there simply is what is.
You are simply unable to comprehend that creatures with fatal mutations don't create entire species.  You are also unable to comprehend that there are millions of non-beneficial or harmful mutations which exist in living creatures today, in whole species and subspecies of creatures.  

The Giant koalas are an example of what you call an incorrect line of development.  They are a mutation of regular sized koalas that didn't work out.

hmm...let me try to explain this; maybe someones way of explaining will make sense to Messenger.

Our examples starts out with a Population of flies we'll call type A.

Let's say that three baby flies are born fly type A, B, and C.

Fly type A was born with characteristics which neither helped nor hindered his survival.  So, we'll name him A-Neutral.

Fly type B was very lucky, he was born with a mutation which caused his wings to be purple.  Purple wings are viewed as very attractive to his species so he will be able to successfully have fly sex and spead his purple genes at a greater rate than normal flies.  So, we'll name him B-positive.

Fly type C was not so lucky, he was born with a mutation which caused his wings to be brown.  Brown wings are viewed as very unattractive to his species so he will not be successful in having fly sex and his brown wing genes won't spread.  So, we'll name him C-negative.

Fly A-neutral, B-positive, and C-negative mature to reproductive ages.  Fly B-positive is very popular with the fly ladies and is able to father many children.  Fly A-neutral has a satisfactory relationship with the ladies and is able to father a typical amount of fly children.  Fly C-negative dies as a bachelor because the fly ladies thought he was horribly ugly.    In other words, Fly B-positive greatly extended the amount of B-positive gense in the gene pool while A=neutral just passed on his gense to those who B-positive turned down, and Fly C-negative died without passing any of his genes into the gene pool.

Let's take a look at the population now:  Instead of having a population of flies called type A we now have a population of flies called type AB.  Type C is a thing of the past.

Let's fast forward even further ahead?  What do you know, those crazy flies now have a ton more type Bs than they do As...in fact, there are so many Type Bs that it would be more proper to refer to the group as Type B flies.

Through sexual selection we see a group of flies go from one type to another.

That's how it works for all things, only just add more layers: environment, predators, food, etc.  Mutations happen all the time and usually they are neutral; it's the positive mutations which manage to take hold and spread (relatively) quickly while the negative mutations cause the creature to no be able to spread their genes.

The process of evolution is complex when looked at as a whole, but like the formation of a snowflake, is very simple once you break it down.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"hmm...let me try to explain this; maybe someones way of explaining will make sense to Messenger.
The process of evolution is complex when looked at as a whole, but like the formation of a snowflake, is very simple once you break it down.

yes, it is simple, but only if you ignore facts of non existing of unintelligent design
I.e. It must be intelligent

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "laetusatheos"hmm...let me try to explain this; maybe someones way of explaining will make sense to Messenger.
The process of evolution is complex when looked at as a whole, but like the formation of a snowflake, is very simple once you break it down.

yes, it is simple, but only if you ignore facts of non existing of unintelligent design
I.e. It must be intelligent

NO ... it only has to be intelligent if you're an idiot ... but then you are!


Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"it only has to be intelligent if you're an idiot ... but then you are!

Very strange
I always thought that idiots don't ask for intelligence  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"it only has to be intelligent if you're an idiot ... but then you are!

Very strange
I always thought that idiots don't ask for intelligence  

Sigh! Messenger, "wingnut" doesn't come close in describing you so again I am willing to incur moderator wrath to say this ... ... you are a complete and utter fuckwit!

Logic is a useful reasoning tool, it can lead to the discovery of many things but logic alone will NEVER prove anything and it is only philosophers with more brains than sense and those with a religious agenda who misuse logic in the way that you do.

Evolution is not only possible, it is our current best understanding of how the diversity of life we observe around us came to be and NOT ONE of your pathetic logical, philosophical, metaphysical abortion will make a difference to that fact. Reasoning people DO NOT use logic in this way and you're a prat to think you can.

Kyu

Veiled insults won't get a discussion anywhere.  And neither will simply repeating the same thing over and over.  Messenger, you will not receive what you ask because what you ask for is based upon an incorrect idea of what evolution is and how it works.  Because of that, this discussion will never get anywhere - each side is working upon a very different premise of evolution.  I suggest you go and seek out a basic evolutionary biology text or the like, review it and understand where something went wrong.  Otherwise none of these discussions will get anywhere and only serve to frustrate everyone involved.

Remember that discussions are a two way street and not simply repeating your claims over and over and simply glancing over any contradictory evidence and then just saying that no one understands.

Quote from: "Squid"Veiled insults won't get a discussion anywhere.

Hey!!!!

There was nothing veiled about my insults  

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Squid"Veiled insults won't get a discussion anywhere.

Hey!!!!

There was nothing veiled about my insults  

Kyu

Actually, it was based on the post I read by messenger above.  I opted out of discussions with him because I found myself starting to get frustrated and losing my cool so I had to step back.  I also realized that he wasn't comprehending what anyone was telling him and just repeated the same things over and over and any further discussion would have been a waste of time.

To make sure you are aware, messenger had a date with the bouncers.