hughfarey wrote:Hi Nikki; the paucity of transitional fossils was a problem for evolution from the moment of Darwin's publication, and he recognised it as such. Then, as now, the answer was thought to lie in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Although fossil collections often appear extensive and comprehensive, the entirely of all the collections provides a vanishingly small proportion of all the species which ever lived. What's more, as the story of the evolution of whales demonstrates, the development of a new species from another looking nothing like it can be remarkably fast in geological terms, and thousands of generations can be completely lost. Nevertheless, continued exploration has continued to unearth transitional forms, and will no doubt continue to do so.
You are correct that "some would stick around longer than others." Pressure to evolve comes from changes in the environment, which can be geologically generated or by internal stresses such as over-population or competition. As long as the environment remains fairly stable, and a community of species fits it, there is little pressure to change, but when survival becomes a struggle, then species must adapt quite quickly.
When you say that you "went looking online for transitional forms", I wonder what you actually did? If you Google "transitional forms" "whale", you will find some 20,000 sites, and the second image, from
http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm, shows a representative selection of nine transitional forms, and those are from a book published in 1999. Since then not only have more whale fossils been excavated, but those already known have been considerably better understood. There are at least 30 transitional stages currently being studied.
It cannot be emphasised too much that understanding the details of evolution is very much an ongoing process, and books published 15 ears ago cannot be quoted as the last word on the evolutionist position. With this in mind I recommend a lecture posted less than a year ago, called 'Cetacean Evolution - a Whale of a Tale', by Jon Peters. It can be found at "
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ion-whales.
I hope that helps.
Abelcainsbrother, I do understand that a typical creationist modus operandi is to attempt to discredit evolution, and after that fill the vacant 'explanation space' with an alternative, but that's not how science works. The evidence for competing hypotheses are compared at the same time, and the one with the best evidence accepted as the best explanation so far. In the absence of any evidence for any alternative, then the evidence for evolution, however deficient, is better than nothing, and therefore evolution is the best explanation for the development of life.
I'm sorry I did not directly answer your question: "What is the difference between variation in reproduction, adaptation and life evolving?" I don't find this very clear, but I will interpret it as best I can, and hope I can answer.
A species is a group of organisms which can interbreed. It is characterised by a 'gene pool' of a number of genes, of which each individual of the species has a selection. The selection can be quite varied, but as long as the individual can breed with similar organisms, we term it a member of the species. As long as the species can intercommunicate well, these genes can be shuffled about during the process of sexual reproduction, producing offspring that can still interbreed with other members of the species. This is what I think you mean by "variation in reproduction".
Environmental pressures may result in the species gradually occupying two environmentally different habitats. These can be geographical, such as the opposite banks of a river, or behavioural, such as feeding from the sides or the bottom of a lake. As long as there is good communication between the individuals, the genes will continue to shuffle, the offspring will all still be able to interbreed, and the single species is maintained. However, if behaviour or geography tends to separate individuals into two groups which do not interbreed (even if they could), then gradually the particular gene pools of each group may result in individuals which can no longer breed with individuals of the other group. This is speciation. Along the way, the two groups may undergo intermediate stages in which individuals of the two different groups can mate, but produce increasingly less fertile offspring. The result is two separate species, each adapted better to its particular environment. This is half of what I think you mean by 'adaptation.'
The other half consists of the emergence of completely new genes. While all this interbreeding is going on, the DNA of each individual must be copied billions of times, and for various reasons it may not be copied precisely. There may be simple copying errors, or the DNA can be damaged by exposure to various forms of radiation. This occurs all the time, and most of the new material is fatal to the organism which depends on it. However, given the billions of versions of DNA being generated, occasionally a new gene is not fatal, and, if the individual with it reproduces, it becomes part of the gene pool of the species. As such, it may be useful if the time comes for adaptation to a new environment, and contribute to the difference between two species. That completes my explanation of what I think you mean by 'adaptation'.
This combination of processes, reproductive gene shuffling, adapting to new environments, and the emergence of new forms of DNA, results in species, by a continuous process of dividing into two other species, increasing in number and variety to fit the global environment as well as possible at any one time. That explains what I think you mean by 'evolution.'
I hope that helps.
You go on to say this: "They try to convince us life evolved because it can no longer breed, however no evolution happened at all and if they could not interbreed they would just die out unless man intervened and controlled the breeding like in animal breeding." I would like to reply, but sadly I cannot understand it at all. Would you care to rephrase it?
This, however, I understand: "If I asked you to describe evaporation I'm sure you could and if I asked you for a demonstration I'm sure you could demonstrate it too, but this is not the case with evolution, instead we must assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." You are correct that it is very difficult to demonstrate evolution in a laboratory. It is difficult to demonstrate the formation and development of galaxies too, and the reproduction of blue whales. Laboratories are not suited to the very large, the very rare or the very slow, and we have to make the best of what evidence we have. However, we must certainly not "assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." We must judge that evidence for ourselves, and balance it against other evidence, and make up our minds based on which seems to explain the development of life best. That is why I have been asking for evidence for an alternative to evolution, so that I can balance the two and judge for myself which to go for. In the absence of any other evidence, evolution has to win - for the present.
