Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.

For everything to evolve according to their theory,it would have taken much longer then they believe the universe is.

Genetics are predictable and there is a reason for it.

But also these mutant genes have mechanisms working to correct errors which make odds even higher for it to happen the way they say. I believe most variations within a family are merely different lineages cross breeding. The gene pool is very vast in most populations except for the ones that we consider as purebreeds.

When a population becomes isolated and they reproduce with only their own kind they breed out information that could have been there from previous generations,that is why a purebred only has the genetic information to reproduce what they are.

That is what happens through selective breeding,it might take several different breeds to make up a certain kind dog, cattle,or horse, but over time you breed that animal with the same breeding to another the other breeds that it took to make that breed will not show up in the population.

Not sure how many generations it would take but eventually the DNA information of the other breeds will be gone unless reintroduced to the population.

I just about fell off my chair the other day when I was reading a Darwinist article about crossbreeding and they used the mule as example!! I wondered if anyone has told them that crossbreed ends with the mule??

They don't want to admit to limits.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.

That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?

The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?

We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

HEY UR!
got a link for that quote

Gradualism, do you have any evidence for Gradualism with any living organisms that would support macro not micro?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.

That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?

The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.

Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.

 

[Hollie]

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.

Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.

 

[Montrovant]

Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.

That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?

The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.

Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population. What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.

So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.

 

[daws101]

Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

Some parts of science books are to.

only for space not for content...the books you are speaking of are for grades 1-6
it's not practical to use a college level science text when teaching 5th graders.the reasons why should be obvious.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.

Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.

That might depend on how you define transitional species. If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.

 

[daws101]

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?

We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.

(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
my money is on new species.
besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.

 

[daws101]

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.

Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.

bump!
thanks

 

[UltimateReality]

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.

I'm sorry, doesn't bear what out? I'm not certain what point you are responding to.

The fossil record saying new species aren't popping up all the time. That was my point.

 

[UltimateReality]

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

HEY UR!
got a link for that quote

Evolution friendly Wiki, Baby!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

 

[UltimateReality]

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.

 

[UltimateReality]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

Some parts of science books are to.

only for space not for content...the books you are speaking of are for grades 1-6
it's not practical to use a college level science text when teaching 5th graders.the reasons why should be obvious.

So continue to brainwash small children with lies like the tree of life? That's just great.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.

Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.

That might depend on how you define transitional species. If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.

So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]

 

[Montrovant]

Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.

Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.

That might depend on how you define transitional species. If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.

So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]

As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.

The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.

You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\

There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.

 

[UltimateReality]

That might depend on how you define transitional species. If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.

So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]

As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.

The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.

You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\

There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.

Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.

Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.

Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.

Ok you are scientifically illiterate. Humans had to come from something.

Here is your tree.

Google Image Result for http://api.ning.com/files/gLbtJLaXsiOn8E5Dy*u1TPYNEFpcTZva4wwYo8fOS2V6xCPP-*Z1-NmwyW-i7siw/EvolutionTree.jpg