Intellegent Design

[Emerald Aeris]

"The main mechanism of evolution is basic natural selection - survival of the fittest."

Wes, I know what I'm talking about here. :P Natural selection is not responsible for the variation, mutations are. Where else does variation come from?

99.9% of all life is extinct now. Right now there's approximately 2-10 million species... some say up to 20 million. Do the math. I don't think mutations account for that huge amount of variation. There's another factor we haven't seen yet. My bio professor agrees with me here. It doesn't make evolution wrong, it just means there's a genetic process of some sort we haven't discovered yet.

My point was not that I don't agree with evolution, it's that I don't think we know everything there is to know about it. It's rather arrogant to say we do.

"Scientists have been having trouble with that recently, as apparently some parts of various species have become unable to mate with other members of the same species - which means they've speciated."

I'm argueing FOR evolution, ya goof. You make it sound like I'm not. I was talking about whitetails. They're still the same species, but a little different. My point was that it's the very beginning of speciation.

Also, you can't just say "various species", you need a link to back it up.

"You mean Big Bang? :P"

Argh. No. Geez, Wes, you bust in here without even reading the whole thread. the big bang wasn't caused by two dimensions/universes colliding. that's what I was refering to.

Can you read more of the thread before "correcting" us like that?

[Raistlin]

Wes, I know what I'm talking about here. :P Natural selection is not responsible for the variation, mutations are. Where else does variation come from?

Mutation is merely one mechanism of natural selection. Others, off the top of my head, are migration, disasters, bottleneck effect, founder's effect, etc. I didn't mean to insinuate that mutation wasn't responsible for a large part of variation(which it is), merely that it is one mechanism of the one term which is responsible for variation(that being natural selection)

Right now there's approximately 2-10 million species... some say up to 20 million.

Some say a billion. It's kind of pointless to debate since there's an estimated 5-400 million species of protists that are unidentified(no one has a friggin' clue).

My point was not that I don't agree with evolution, it's that I don't think we know everything there is to know about it. It's rather arrogant to say we do.

Of course not, but we're getting damn close. Hell, we've come damn close to creating life in a lab from scratch. Last semester in genetics, we were shown an article where scientists had created genuine RNA with 14 base pairs that self-replicated up to 40 base pairs(or so) until it died. They created RNA out of nothing remotely living, mind you. That's pretty damn amazing. *goes to see if he can find article*

I'm argueing FOR evolution, ya goof. You make it sound like I'm not. I was talking about whitetails. They're still the same species, but a little different. My point was that it's the very beginning of speciation.

I know. I was merely continuing on with your point, not disagreeing.

Also, you can't just say "various species", you need a link to back it up.

My bio teacher talked about it two years ago in certain types of frogs. If I can find an article about it online, I'll post it.

"You mean Big Bang? :P"

Argh. No. Geez, Wes, you bust in here without even reading the whole thread. the big bang wasn't caused by two dimensions/universes colliding. that's what I was refering to.

Haha, ok. xD You're right, I only read the last two posts. I was hoping you'd remember Big Bang.

Can you read more of the thread before "correcting" us like that?

So I missed your universal colliding stuff.
I'm not very knowledgeable about that subject anyway. Evolution, however, is my forte(which is why my last post was almost exclusively about it).

[Emerald Aeris]

"Mutation is merely one mechanism of natural selection. Others, off the top of my head, are migration, disasters, bottleneck effect, founder's effect, etc. I didn't mean to insinuate that mutation wasn't responsible for a large part of variation(which it is), merely that it is one mechanism of the one term which is responsible for variation(that being natural selection)"

You misunderstand. The differences in DNA, ie, morphisms within a species are ONLY caused by mutations. Migration, disasters, bottleneck and other effects only change the frequencies of already existing alleles; they do not change the alleles themselves. Those effects are what determine which mutations are successful, and which are detrimental, which in turn leads to the changing of the species' genotype. But those mechanisms don't actually change genes. Without changes in the genes, ie, without mutations, it would just be the same genotype changing frequency throughout generations, but no new characteristics coming up. Without mutations, there would be no evolution. Mutations are soley responsible for the genetic evolution of species. No other mechanisms changes the genetic structure to make new features and such. Those mechanisms, using my example of the size difference in whitetails, account for why and how the size difference between populations arose, but not why the size difference existed in the first place. The only way for the small size allele to appear in the first place is mutation. See what I mean?

"Of course not, but we're getting damn close. Hell, we've come damn close to creating life in a lab from scratch. Last semester in genetics, we were shown an article where scientists had created genuine RNA with 14 base pairs that self-replicated up to 40 base pairs(or so) until it died. They created RNA out of nothing remotely living, mind you. That's pretty damn amazing. *goes to see if he can find article*"

Check out the Miller-Urey experiment if you already haven't. Nifty stuff.

"My bio teacher talked about it two years ago in certain types of frogs. If I can find an article about it online, I'll post it."

Ah, that's Gray/Cope's tree frog. It's due to polyploidy.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/hylavers.htm

Something else interesting along that line, they've found salamanders double the normal size, and in the lab found out they were polyploid as well. They're 2x the size because their doubled genome tells their body to make twice as much growth hormone.

[Auronhart]

Why shouldn't we assume that the genetic changes that we see changing the appearance of species now accounts for the difference in how species appeared long ago?
Yes, it is extrapolation, but it has a good foundation.

If we could show tendencies to actually change into another species, (gene changes in all of bone structure, color and size if we are talking about gradual evolution) in animals then I might agree that macro-evolution has some support, (though I would still hate to see people assuming that macro-evolution ever happened and extrapolating to give that result (extrapolation is bad, no matter how supported you think it is)) but that still doesn't give it the foundation to actually tell us where we came from. (evolutionists like to assume that it is a single cell) (possible != probable != happened) If the theory was punctuated evolution, we would have no evidence that it could happen = an unscientific theory. (we have to be able to view something for it to be based on science. Science by nature is inductive.)

Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure.

I meant that if bones were to have evolved, the genes for bone structure would have to change. (as well as size, which as you pointed out, hasn't been observed)

"Dimension", thanks for sci-fi, implies it exists in another universe, but remember that up, down, time, etc are all dimensions and very much a part of this universe.

Not necessarily, just like a wall has a 2-dimensional element, (which is contained in our 3-dimensional) world so could there be another dimension that exists which contains our universe.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

I meant ones that were not basically human. (I am saying that hybrids don't exactly help evolution (as I said, because they usually fail, and even if they don't it still requires those other beings to "evolve") Finding a few fossils (skulls say) that look a bit different doesn't tell us if it was indeed another race let alone if they were "related" (as in humans evolved from them or were hybrids of them) to human beings.

1. Visible evolution does not require a gazillion years. The accepted theory now is called punctuated equilibrium - meaning that the majority of time, there's not much going on(besides basic genetic drift), which is punctuated(hence the name) by momentary spurts of evolution. Since visible evolution requires a big change in the enviroment or a visible mutation(rare), this theory makes a lot of sense.

I see...that is even harder for scientists to even find evidence for. This is exactly why people should be very careful to teach evolution as a theory.

Yeah, it's kinda futile, since proving other theories unlikely doesn't make yours any more likely. If you prove that evolution can't happen, and I prove that intelligent design can't happen, does that make my theory of a giant chicken laying an egg from which life began from more likely? No. It means we don't know.

If you could prove intelligent design wrong (which you can't as far as I know) and I could prove evolution wrong, (which I can't quite, but it keeps being shown to be more and more unlikely over time) then that would point to something else, but the point is all we can do is look at the likelyhood of each idea when it comes to how our universe was formed. (mass is already around by some supernatural means) I still have yet to see why people think macro-evolution is scientific, though. It is a belief system, because it does not have any serious basis. As I believe I have said, even if we assume macro-evolution can happen, (and in that time frame) it still does not deduce that it did happen. (and that we did come from a single cell) On top of that, the existence of macro-evolution cannot be proven unless we can observe it until either we can see a noticeable diffence, or if punctuated equilibrium was correct, until it occured. Assuming what we cannot see or test is unscientific.

Of course not, but we're getting damn close.

..................................................................

P.S I have to restrict myself to just going on EoFF on weekends for this term, so I won't be able to respond as often.

[Emerald Aeris]

"If we could show tendencies to actually change into another species, (gene changes in all of bone structure, color and size if we are talking about gradual evolution) in animals then I might agree that macro-evolution has some support,"

What do you call all the examples given then if not that?

"but that still doesn't give it the foundation to actually tell us where we came from."

So? All anyone can do is theorize based on the evidence we have now.

"Finding a few fossils (skulls say) that look a bit different doesn't tell us if it was indeed another race let alone if they were "related" (as in humans evolved from them or were hybrids of them) to human beings."

You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.

"I still have yet to see why people think macro-evolution is scientific, though. It is a belief system, because it does not have any serious basis."

I still have yet to see you back that statement up, yet you keep saying it. The only thing you've said basically is "we haven't seen a fish turn into a dog".

Some evolution evidence:
- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)
- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)
- speciation happening now (I'm still confused as to what you're talking about in the first paragraph of your post. Speciation IS happening. It's proven.)
- Large changes can occur with a single mutation of the body morphology gene, proven due to experiments with drosophilia
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...ml&dynoptions=

Where is this "no serious evidence"?

"Not necessarily, just like a wall has a 2-dimensional element, (which is contained in our 3-dimensional) world so could there be another dimension that exists which contains our universe."

Yes, necessarily. You're using the term incorrectly.

"I see...that is even harder for scientists to even find evidence for. This is exactly why people should be very careful to teach evolution as a theory."

It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this. The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it... Species did appear in large bursts in the past.

"the existence of macro-evolution cannot be proven unless we can observe it until either we can see a noticeable diffence, or if punctuated equilibrium was correct, until it occured. Assuming what we cannot see or test is unscientific."

No, there are many theories people (and I'm sure you) readily accept without 100% observed proof just because they have a lot of proof. we don't know how gravity works, but I bet you're pretty sure it's there. Are you really going to call any calculations involving gravity unscientific?

I just really, really, really don't understand why you think evolution is so flawed that it' ridiculous. Flawed, yes, but "unscientific"? Your claims are completely baseless! It really seems to me that you don't understand the theory, since we've corrected you several times, and because of that you reject it due to your faith. Rejecting it based on faith I understand, but not due to science. It's a perfectly valid theory.

[Auronhart]

I still have yet to see you back that statement up, yet you keep saying it. The only thing you've said basically is "we haven't seen a fish turn into a dog".

No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.

Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)

Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.

It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this.

The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there. By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species.

The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it...

Exactly.

Species did appear in large bursts in the past.

As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)

No, there are many theories people (and I'm sure you) readily accept without 100% observed proof just because they have a lot of proof. we don't know how gravity works, but I bet you're pretty sure it's there. Are you really going to call any calculations involving gravity unscientific?

Specifically I am attacking theories without concrete tests to show their validity. Gravity has been extensively tested, so it is a strong theory. Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.

Some evolution evidence:

- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)

Obviously talking about mutations. As I've said before, mutations are usually detrimental. (I have yet to hear of one that actually is beneficial in humans)

- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)

I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble.

- speciation happening now (I'm still confused as to what you're talking about in the first paragraph of your post. Speciation IS happening. It's proven.)

Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)

You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.

Old bones are often either not completely intact or could be the result of a small mutation of a human. (in the cases of those skulls)

I just really, really, really don't understand why you think evolution is so flawed that it' ridiculous. Flawed, yes, but "unscientific"? Your claims are completely baseless! It really seems to me that you don't understand the theory, since we've corrected you several times, and because of that you reject it due to your faith. Rejecting it based on faith I understand, but not due to science. It's a perfectly valid theory.

As I've said, the part of evolution that is certainly unscientific is the part that says that we did evolve from lesser beings, as it cannot be shown or be given evidence through any means. micro-evolution is scientific, because it can be observed in action, macro-evolution is a huge extrapolation but it can just be thought of as a theory, because it is theoretically possible no matter the bad results we tend to get from mutations.

[Emerald Aeris]

"The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there."

I never said that the record was proof by itself, but combined with the fact that species are changing now, it makes sense that those changes account for the differences seen in the past. What is unscientific?

"By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species."

Because fossils form under very specific situations. we have very good gradients of many species, horses, because of their habitats, are probably the best example.

"Obviously talking about mutations. As I've said before, mutations are usually detrimental. (I have yet to hear of one that actually is beneficial in humans)"

Except for the ones we already listed. I'm glad we're all on the same page here. Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change. Humanity is a bad example since natural selection, a key part of evolution, doesn't apply to us (we don't breed randomly, no traits are selected for). Also, apart from that, detailed medical records haven't been around long enough to record significant differences in the population. Humanity is a really bad example.

Better examples are found in animals, many of which I already listed.

"I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble."

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species. If we see the mechanism works in some animals, applying it to all is extrapolation, but it's also simple logic. All animals, now and then have DNA that works the same. that's what lets us extrapolate back.

"Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)"

What do you mean by "all important attributes"? It really doesn't matter. Speciation happens! just because it doesn't fit your version of evolution doesn't matter.

"Old bones are often either not completely intact or could be the result of a small mutation of a human. (in the cases of those skulls)"

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

"As I've said, the part of evolution that is certainly unscientific is the part that says that we did evolve from lesser beings, as it cannot be shown or be given evidence through any means."

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant), and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

"micro-evolution is scientific, because it can be observed in action, macro-evolution is a huge extrapolation but it can just be thought of as a theory"

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?

[Raistlin]

I could've sworn I already replied to Elyse's second-to-last post. O_o Ah well. *forgets about it*

Anyway:

No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.

Give me a break. We have witnessed speciation. What have Elyse and I been talking about the past several posts?
It's also really really common sense, once you think about it. Take this hypothetical situation:

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.

Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there.

Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)

Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.

Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.

[Auronhart]

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

Humanity is a really bad example.

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change.

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species.

The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/i3/horse.asp.

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

Look below for my answer.

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant)

The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely.

and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time. (of course many species would die out) The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree. We do not know even that with the information we have. (we do not even know if these mutations would be capable of changing this hypothetical single cell into humans (albeit gradually), therefore even that macro-evolution can occur is a theory.) Saying that it is a theory like gravity, is ridiculuous because we have never indeed seen it in action.

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits.

Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

Oh yes, there were mutations, but does that give the theory of evolution any evidence, no. It gives it a possible method of working, but no actual evidence.

Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think.

Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.

Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't. Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven. To show that, yes you would need to travel back in time.

[Raistlin]

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

Bad mutations are, I would imagine, just as common as good ones. However, the organisms with bad mutations generally die out as a result.

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

How does "humanity is a really bad example" translate into "humanity doesn't follow evolutionary rules?" I'll let her explain for herself, but I believe she meant that homo sapiens are a difficult example of evolution to explain.

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

"Improved" is a subjective analysis insignificant to evolution. We grew and thrived - that's all that matters. "Lesser beings" is also subjective. And no, that doesn't mean beneficial mutations are more common - that's just one possibility. The only objective thing that can be said about humans "improving" so much is our unprecedented ability to adapt. It could've been as a result of ONE freak beneficial mutation after a hundred bad ones.

The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them.

Each species has alleles in genes coding for traits. By basic Mendelian genetics, the allele frequencies change over time. Evolution. Yes, it does happen it all species.

There is no way to show common ancestory.

There's a lot of ways. The fossil record suggests very strong relationships within homologous organisms, and you can really see how a species changed over time.

Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits.

But it's speciation. If you admit that speciation happens now, why wouldn't it have happened all along? You make very little sense.

Oh yes, there were mutations, but does that give the theory of evolution any evidence, no. It gives it a possible method of working, but no actual evidence.

You seem to require pictures of evolution happening a billion years ago to happen, which is naive and just downright silly.

I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Hardly. The planet remained inhabitied by simple prokaryotes until the atmosphere became oxygenated. Then suddenly eukaryotes appeared and began speciating like mad. Sounds like pretty good evidence of evolution to me.


You are blindly disregarding any evidence we give in the fact that there weren't pictures taken in the past to prove they actually happened. However, Elyse and I have both shown that evolution happens now, and by the basic principles of alleles, DNA, natural selection, mutations, etc, they have always happened. It's really common sense.

[Emerald Aeris]

"My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely."

How do you explain how we've bred dogs/cats into so many forms? That's basically artificial evolution.

"Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting."

We follow the "rules", we're a species in a state of evolutionary stasis because of our circumstances/choices... Evolutionary change will only change if there's pressure on the population. Think of it like this: if there's only food available up high, tall animals will survive, if being small allows one to hide, small animals survive. If those pressures don't exist, all traits will eventually be expressed equally. Because there's no pressures on humans, and because we mate with everyone (no traits selected for), any mutations don't have a chance to be advantageous, because everyone already "wins".

"The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations."

Nope. Beings with disadventageous mutations either die out, or are bred into nonexistence in favour of those with advantageous mutations.

"The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...21/i3/horse.asp."

Again, that article is grossly inaccurate, and again, I'll reccommend against using creationist sources.

A large part of the article deals with people just saying that the 'family tree' is bad, not why.

"Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’"

Yes, science changes as more evidence is found. The evolution of the horse is definitely not a straight line.

"Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial."

So very very wrong. Radiometric dating?

"Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old."

Argh.

"the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer. This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other."

1. "Same layer" can just mean that the fossils were disturbed, and re-buried. But of course, since this site believes the earth is 6k years old, they won't mention that radiometric dating is ridiculously more accurate, and would've been used.

2. The article already established that the horse family is a "bush" rather than a linear tree. This means that there were a couple types of horses in existance over the years. more specifically one with one toe, and one with three. That means that there were indeed two species of horses alive with one toe and three toes, but it doesn't discredit evolution at all. This chart says it well:


"Note that this sorting process involves a loss of information, so is irrelevant to particles-to-people evolution, which requires non-intelligent processes to add new information."

Mutations add information. This article is poorly written. It doesn't get to the point very well, or explain their points very well. Probably because then they'd be wrong.

"Sometimes a horse is born today where the genes are switched on, and certainly many fossil horses also had the genes switched on. This would explain why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size."

Well... yes. That proves my point.

"These mechanisms would explain the alleged horse evolutionary series as variation within the equine (horse) kind."

How did they come to that conclusion from just listing features of horses now? For one thing, the horses existed at different times, so it can hardly all be attributed to variation within the kind. There certainly was variation, as I said, there were one toed, and three toed variety. This doesn't discredit evolution either. You could interpret the fossils being different over time because god created new horses, but that's ignoring the genetic aspect that points to that the change is more likely due to changes in the genome.

"Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers."

Uh, what? What does amounts of carbon have to do with how they ate? and sure, sometimes judging what things eat by their teeth is wrong, but most of the time it's correct.

"Again, this information loss is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, much like the long-furred bears in the diagram of Ref. 15."
Ref. 15 = http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/bears.asp

this is SO wrong I nearly chipped a tooth gritting. I can't believe a doctor wrote this! If there's a loss of information with such changes, how in the world could there be toe genes to turn on again, like it said previously in the article?? It's the same thing here! Geez, it's not even interally consistant, let alone being consistant with science and evidence.

"The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely."

We have A gradient, is what I meant. That's the best we could hope for. A pecfect gradient will never be found for anything, because fossilization is too unlikely is what I meant.

"There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)"

To you I'm sure they look the same, since you know little about skull anatomy. You're not an expert. I've studied skulls a little bit, and they're much more intricate than they seem. They can tell. Besides that, with some skulls they can do DNA tests.

"They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time."

Small changes over millions years = big change! Would you call chihuahuas and great danes "approximately the same"? I wouldn't.

"The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree."

The way I see it, evolution puts two and two together. Changes that cause variation + time = small differences is a fact (microevolution). We look at fossils and see big variation + big time = big differences. We assume the mechanisms that cause them are the same (genetically). That's evolution. See why I'm confused as to why you believe one but not the other?

Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it can't be how it is. And since you've acknowledged microevolution, that seems to be the only reason you're denying it.

"Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits."

We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)

In your own words, speciation is macroevolution.

"Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think."

I think you're quite mistaken. I studied a small bit of it last year, and it was overwhelming.

"I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion."

You could just say that for all the evidence, yet you still debate.

"Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't."

What do you mean by "all ways"?

"Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven."

Why would life evolve some, and then stop? I suppose you could say that god spurred evolution or something, but that's really not consistant.

[Skogs]

I won't bother responding to all of Auronhart's last post. Just the most painfully wrong bits.

Only if you assume that the chains moving towards humanity cannot go extinct. (you are assuming that any of the first paths that were going in the general direction of humanity did not go die out.)

They could have gone extinct, but they didn't. If they did, we wouldn't be here. Just like if your grandmother had died at birth, you wouldn't be here. Yes, the chances we evolved EXACTLY THE WAY WE DID are infintessimaily small. But it must have happened, because: hey, we're here, aren't we?

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

Not lesser beings. Just lesser adapted beings. For the answer to your second sentence, see above. Or I'll reapeat. EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF 'GOOD' MUTATIONS IS VASTLY OUTNUMBERED BY THE 'NEUTRAL' AND 'BAD' MUTATIONS, THEY ARE SELECTED FOR AND THUS PERSIST. BAD MUTATIONS DON'T ACCUMULATE.

*cough*

I could show you a mathematical model if you like.

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.


Jus one further note - evolution is not a gradient. It is discrete, but may well approximate to a gradient. This is because the units of DNA and thus inheretance are discrete.

[Auronhart]

Each species has alleles in genes coding for traits. By basic Mendelian genetics, the allele frequencies change over time. Evolution. Yes, it does happen it all species.

Micro-evolution does, I am saying that even if you can prove that horses eventually evolved from another species, (let's say initially from a reptile, because that is an obvious case of macro-evolution, with no ambiguity (I am basically saying, say macro-evolution occured once in the past)) then you still cannot prove or assume that humans evolved from apes. (i.e cannot show it happened 100 times because it simply does not follow) The rules of logic do not allow this leap especially when the time given is limited.

There's a lot of ways. The fossil record suggests very strong relationships within homologous organisms, and you can really see how a species changed over time.

The fossil record isn't as complete as you seem to like to think, if for even one species you could show the gradient from a distinct species (these must be noticeably different species, as the way I have been talking about species is in terms of noticeably different species (i.e apes and humans)) then you would have some good support for macro-evolution, but the point is that even with this evidence (which I don't think you have), first of all, macro-evolution would still be a theory, (though it would be likely it happened with the gradient) but that would in no way suggest that macro-evolution occured more than once.

"Improved" is a subjective analysis insignificant to evolution. We grew and thrived - that's all that matters. "Lesser beings" is also subjective. And no, that doesn't mean beneficial mutations are more common - that's just one possibility. The only objective thing that can be said about humans "improving" so much is our unprecedented ability to adapt. It could've been as a result of ONE freak beneficial mutation after a hundred bad ones.

I think you will probably agree that a single cell is a lesser being, and that is what we are being told we came from.

But it's speciation. If you admit that speciation happens now, why wouldn't it have happened all along? You make very little sense.

Simple small speciation (micro-evolution=small changes in a species, which can change the being into another similar species (in your example, the change is only habit change which is only a result of micro-evolution, it in no way implies that the deer will continue to change species until we see it in a completely different class then the other deer) does not prove that big speciation (macro-evolution=the gradual change over time into a drastically different species) can happen or that it has happened.

You seem to require pictures of evolution happening a billion years ago to happen, which is naive and just downright silly.

No, I just require some proper evidence to show that macro-evolution can happen and that it was likely to have happened in the time frame we were given. Basically every link of the evolutionary tree is incredibly weak (no actual evidence of the link between them) and the rest are still very far from complete. If all of those links were to be filled in (which we know won't happen) or we were able to view the process of each different macro-evolution in the past then I would accept evolution, but without those links, the evolutionary tree is as weak a theory as human beings have come up with so far.

You are blindly disregarding any evidence we give in the fact that there weren't pictures taken in the past to prove they actually happened. However, Elyse and I have both shown that evolution happens now, and by the basic principles of alleles, DNA, natural selection, mutations, etc, they have always happened. It's really common sense.

Man, you seem to be blindly ignoring what I have been saying. I said, that evolution happens, but micro-evolution, which is a small change in a species. (and yes speciation does happen, but the species stay similar in appearance and DNA etc.) What I disagree with is that you can decide then, that these great changes did happen in the past first of all and that one of such changes (were it to be proven) would result in the evolutionary tree. You just don't get it, micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution can happen, (as I've said, the changes may keep the species around the same general area for all we know.) let alone whether it did happen and macro-evolution simply does not imply the evolutionary tree. It is a series of logical fallacies.

Hardly. The planet remained inhabitied by simple prokaryotes until the atmosphere became oxygenated. Then suddenly eukaryotes appeared and began speciating like mad. Sounds like pretty good evidence of evolution to me.

I thought you said you couldn't show anything existed before beings had skeletons/exoskeletons, stop assuming information unless you can prove it.

We follow the "rules", we're a species in a state of evolutionary stasis because of our circumstances/choices... Evolutionary change will only change if there's pressure on the population. Think of it like this: if there's only food available up high, tall animals will survive, if being small allows one to hide, small animals survive. If those pressures don't exist, all traits will eventually be expressed equally. Because there's no pressures on humans, and because we mate with everyone (no traits selected for), any mutations don't have a chance to be advantageous, because everyone already "wins".

The problem about this, is that it is very likely that species would have reached this evolutionary stasis beforehand, which is similar to what I was talking about when I said that macro-evolution is not a direct descendant of micro-evolution. We can see micro-evolution, but if these beings just evolve a little and then reach the stasis (which would make sense from the adapting to your environment idea) then macro-evolution would not have occured. (by adapting anyways)

You could interpret the fossils being different over time because god created new horses, but that's ignoring the genetic aspect that points to that the change is more likely due to changes in the genome.

That is kind of hard to put a "more likely" statement to. If God can do what he wants, and since he did create species at different times, it is quite reasonable to believe that he could have created different species of horse. The thing that would make it more likely would be indeed if the gradient to the modern horse was complete. (from a noticeably different being)

So very very wrong. Radiometric dating?

All dating systems expect a certain reference point. (tell me if I'm wrong on this) I personally don't like the use of these reference points, but we'll work with what we have.

We have A gradient, is what I meant. That's the best we could hope for. A pecfect gradient will never be found for anything, because fossilization is too unlikely is what I meant.

Unfortunately for this theory, science doesn't allow you to just fill in the gaps with your imagination.

Small changes over millions years = big change! Would you call chihuahuas and great danes "approximately the same"? I wouldn't.

Can you prove they came from the same place?

The way I see it, evolution puts two and two together. Changes that cause variation + time = small differences is a fact (microevolution). We look at fossils and see big variation + big time = big differences. We assume the mechanisms that cause them are the same (genetically). That's evolution. See why I'm confused as to why you believe one but not the other?

The less complete the fossil record is, the less support it has. See what I have to say below.

Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it can't be how it is. And since you've acknowledged microevolution, that seems to be the only reason you're denying it.

I disagree with it as a scientific theory because it does not follow from induction. I think I need to clarify what I think on this issue. I think that it is possible, but doesn't have even enough support to show that macro-evolution can occur, yet it assumes that it did occur (many times) and that macro-evolution being able to occur proves the evolutionary tree. As you said, I don't agree it is impossible, but from what I've seen and heard, I see no logical reason to say that it happened or even that it is likely.

In your own words, speciation is macroevolution.

I meant greatly different species changes, such as apes and humans. Biology doesn't especially interest me, so I define species differently.

I think you're quite mistaken. I studied a small bit of it last year, and it was overwhelming.

Well, if you want you can post a link about this.

You could just say that for all the evidence, yet you still debate.

No, I won't say that for all the evidence because right now I am just interested in seeing what you use as evidence to show evolution is likely. The comment I made there was just something that followed logically from the point-view of intelligent design, which had a good a reason for that occurence as evolution.

Why would life evolve some, and then stop? I suppose you could say that god spurred evolution or something, but that's really not consistant.

As you said before, we are in an evolutionary "stasis", that would imply that beings can reach this evolutionary stasis and then stop evolving. Some people do say that God spurred evolution, (and it doesn't conflict with the Bible, though I guess humans would have to not be part of the evolutionary tree) but I prefer to wait for some real evidence for evolution before I believe it.

They could have gone extinct, but they didn't. If they did, we wouldn't be here. Just like if your grandmother had died at birth, you wouldn't be here. Yes, the chances we evolved EXACTLY THE WAY WE DID are infintessimaily small. But it must have happened, because: hey, we're here, aren't we?

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.
If you assume that we only could appear by evolution, then, yes, this is true. You cannot use the oh, "we are just one case in infinite possibilities argument" because, if you take the set of all the cases of similar situations, (within a certain bound) then a finite probability can be found. We can therefore use this probability (which will still be dreadfully low) to show that evolution is unlikely to occur.

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

Link something on this?

I could show you a mathematical model if you like.

Go ahead. It better be a good one though.

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself. If evolution's main idea is adaptation, then what happens when all the beings are adapted to their environments. If all beings would adapt to their certain environments after some time and if that has occured anywhere in the past then evolution itself would stop. The other issue is whether these adaptation changes can indeed add up to a large species change. They might for all intents and purposes, stay within a certain difference of the original species.

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point (if this is their method of change) and therefore evolution would have stopped.

Jus one further note - evolution is not a gradient. It is discrete, but may well approximate to a gradient. This is because the units of DNA and thus inheretance are discrete.

Obviously, but if evolution did occur, as you said it would almost certainly be able to be approximated by a gradient. To assume otherwise is unsupported anyways.

[Raistlin]

Micro-evolution does, I am saying that even if you can prove that horses eventually evolved from another species, (let's say initially from a reptile, because that is an obvious case of macro-evolution, with no ambiguity (I am basically saying, say macro-evolution occured once in the past)) then you still cannot prove or assume that humans evolved from apes.

Well, humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a shared ancestor millions of years ago.

The fossil record isn't as complete as you seem to like to think, if for even one species you could show the gradient from a distinct species (these must be noticeably different species, as the way I have been talking about species is in terms of noticeably different species (i.e apes and humans)) then you would have some good support for macro-evolution, but the point is that even with this evidence (which I don't think you have), first of all, macro-evolution would still be a theory, (though it would be likely it happened with the gradient) but that would in no way suggest that macro-evolution occured more than once.

The fossil record is much more complete than you seem to like to think.
Anyway, your following argument is the height of narrow-mindedness. You're saying that even though you submit that macro-evolution could've worked once, that still doesn't prove it worked for all species? Wow.

Simple small speciation (micro-evolution=small changes in a species, which can change the being into another similar species (in your example, the change is only habit change which is only a result of micro-evolution, it in no way implies that the deer will continue to change species until we see it in a completely different class then the other deer) does not prove that big speciation (macro-evolution=the gradual change over time into a drastically different species) can happen or that it has happened.

Simple math. 1+1=2. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. Small changes add up to big changes.

No, I just require some proper evidence to show that macro-evolution can happen and that it was likely to have happened in the time frame we were given.

There's not much more we can do. Scientists have proven that evolution happens right now. Scientists have proven that speciation is happening now. Scientists have a time-frame of what evolved when up to 3.5 billions of years ago with the earliest prokaryotes, and have proved that it's possible to go from single atoms to us. There's not much more to prove.

Man, you seem to be blindly ignoring what I have been saying.

That made me giggle.

I said, that evolution happens, but micro-evolution, which is a small change in a species. (and yes speciation does happen, but the species stay similar in appearance and DNA etc.)

No duh. However, now that you have two different species, what if those two also speciate? Now you have four. Then eight. And who says those new species down the road are going to stay similar?
It's like with blood relations. By a blood test, scientists can show parentage. However, can they show grandparentage? Great-grandparentage? No. Because even though the kids came from them, they start the differ too much after the first "split."

I thought you said you couldn't show anything existed before beings had skeletons/exoskeletons, stop assuming information unless you can prove it.

I'll get a college Biology text book and get you the proof you want. For now, I'll just google.

bioweb.usc.edu/courses/2003-fall/ documents/bisc121-fuhrman_101703.pdf - here's some excerpts from the fossil record and scientists' conclusions thereof.

http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/Hist...nt/Content.htm - here's even more detailed.

http://tecn.rutgers.edu/genbio102/ge...2Evotable.html - and another!

Note the college websites?

The problem about this, is that it is very likely that species would have reached this evolutionary stasis beforehand, which is similar to what I was talking about when I said that macro-evolution is not a direct descendant of micro-evolution.

MANY things have. There's a whole domain called Archaea, which is basically primitive bacteria which we think is stuff from early earth.
Crocodiles? They haven't changed much since the dinosaurs.
There's millions of species of protists and prokaryotes that we haven't identified - many of them might have stopped evolving too. We don't know.

All dating systems expect a certain reference point. (tell me if I'm wrong on this) I personally don't like the use of these reference points, but we'll work with what we have.

Nope. There's "absolute dating" which involves using the half-lifes of radioactive atoms to date something. No reference point.

Can you prove they came from the same place?

Unless we go back in time, probably not up to your standards. However, we've proven that they could have.

I meant greatly different species changes, such as apes and humans. Biology doesn't especially interest me, so I define species differently.

You're naive to think that evolution is one population suddenly turning into two very distinctive species. It's a combination of small changes over time and numerous speciations to turn into distinctive species.

As you said before, we are in an evolutionary "stasis", that would imply that beings can reach this evolutionary stasis and then stop evolving. Some people do say that God spurred evolution, (and it doesn't conflict with the Bible, though I guess humans would have to not be part of the evolutionary tree) but I prefer to wait for some real evidence for evolution before I believe it.

You need several things for evolution to occur. One of them is enviromental pressure to change. That still happens with us all the time on small levels, such as becoming immune to diseases. However, there is no great enviromental factor pressuring us to change to any distinct level. That's why there's no evolution among humans.

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.

Wow, you missed the point entirely. The point was that because we are here, are ancestors were here. Even you should be able to agree with that.
The other argument in that statement was when you said it's not likely at all for the small changes to have made us. My rebuttal: take six dice and roll them. You get a number. But the chances of you getting that six-digit number instead of all the other possibilities are infinitely small. But hey, you had to get some number didn't you?

Link something on this?

That is you asking for a link to show that good mutations persist, bad ones don't. To this I just have to say: wow.

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself.

Not at all. Evolution is based on the common-sense concept of natural selection. Natural selection is based on enviromental pressure. Therefore, no enviromental pressure, no evolution.

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point

Not really. The enviroment is constantly changing.


If you want to continue arguing, you really need to take a biology course, or at least read a biology text. It's hard to hold a debate when we have to explain basic Bio 101(absolute dating, selective pressure, natural selection) as we go. The vast majority of your arguments stem from ignorance in even the simplest evolutionary concepts.

[Skogs]

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.
If you assume that we only could appear by evolution, then, yes, this is true. You cannot use the oh, "we are just one case in infinite possibilities argument" because, if you take the set of all the cases of similar situations, (within a certain bound) then a finite probability can be found. We can therefore use this probability (which will still be dreadfully low) to show that evolution is unlikely to occur.

No, I'm using it to say that you can't use the 'dreadfully low possibilty' to disprove evolution. It's like saying that, since in the last 10 generations of your family 2046 (mostly, assuming no inbreeding) people had to meet and procreate at exactly the right time, it is pretty much impossible that you exist. You have a plausible mechanism, and a plausible end result. Probability doesn't come into it.

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

Its common sense.

Go ahead. It better be a good one though.

Crap. It's been two years since I did any population mathmatics.

Ok - here's your basic population model for two species in competition:

Pt+1 = r1 * pt*(K1-c1*q1-pt)/K1
Qt+1 = r2 * qt*(K2-c2*p1-qt)/K2

Where:

Pt+1 and Qt+1 = population at next time period.
Pt and Qt = population at current time period.
r1 and r2 = rates of growth for the populations.
K1 and K2 are the carrying capacity for the environment.
c1 and c2 are the degree to which the species compete.

If two species are the same, then c1=c2=1, k1=k2, r1=r2 and model doesn't apply.

Right. Now, say a mutation occurs in a poputaions (Q) so that affected individuals (P) have a slightly reduced fitness (ability to compete), say if...

1.2 = c1, c2 = .8

Because they are still pretty much the same species, and are thus subject to the same, static carrying capacity: K1 = K2 and r1=r2=r (for simplicity's sake)

Now, we substitute all this into our competition model.

Pt+1 = r * pt*(K-1.2q1-pt)/K
Qt+1 = r * qt*(K-0.8p1-qt)/K

If you plug this into a graph with suitable numbers (i.e., low Po and high Qo), you'll see that the graph for P against T will drop to near-zero fairly quickly, while Q will rise to K fairly quickly, too. Thus, the group with the mutation die out.

If you did the reverse with the same numbers, i.e. the mutation gives a competitive advantage,

Pt+1 = r * pt*(K-0.8q1-pt)/K
Qt+1 = r * qt*(K-1.2p1-qt)/K

P would initially be very low, but as it begins to establish itself its growth rate would accelerate at the expense of the Q. Thus, an advantageous mutation becomes established.

It's a pretty complex (well, for those who don't have maths degrees) model for a rather simple idea, but hey - you asked for it.

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself. If evolution's main idea is adaptation, then what happens when all the beings are adapted to their environments. If all beings would adapt to their certain environments after some time and if that has occured anywhere in the past then evolution itself would stop. The other issue is whether these adaptation changes can indeed add up to a large species change. They might for all intents and purposes, stay within a certain difference of the original species.

Chaos. Yes, if all creatures reached a perfect (and I mean down to the submolecular level) equilibrium, then evolution would stop. But that won't happen. Things change.

And you can't just say that large scale adaptations can't occur, just because we haven't seen them happen.

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point (if this is their method of change) and therefore evolution would have stopped.

See above.

Obviously, but if evolution did occur, as you said it would almost certainly be able to be approximated by a gradient. To assume otherwise is unsupported anyways.

Not neccessarily. Small genetic changes (say in a transcription factor gene) can cause widespread developmental and therefore morphological differences. That would result in a single generation large shift, which could not be viewed as a small shift.