Feedback for February 2003

It is common knowledge amongst scientists that there is a great deal of difference between extrapolation and interpolation. The latter is what you do when you want to model what a data point would look like inside a data set, where your desired model point is surrounded by real data. The former is what you do when you want to model what a data point would look like outside a data set, where the model point may be far removed from any real data points. It should be no great surprise that interpolation can be done with rather more confidence than extrapolation.

The problem with extrapolation is that it requires a rigorously uniformitarian approach. Barnes assumes that the exponential he created from 150 years of data must be an absolutely invariant law of nature for all time. But what is the justification for that assumption? It is his personal bias, and not a thing else.

Systematic global patterns of magnetization are data, and are clear evidence of a field reversal, and the assumption of a reversal is an interpolation within that global data set.

So while Barnes performs an unjustified extrapolation, real scientists perform justified interpolations. Barnes uses a sloppy technique that any teacher of physics should be ashamed to show.

The reader is apparently referring to Jim Meritt's FAQ. I still don't see a contradiction there, though.

Wesley

"Stealth creationism" is an ongoing feature of this public debate - many anti-evolutionists like to hide the fact that they are creationists (not all anti-evolutionists are, of course). But the truth will out, as it has here. Thanks.

However, note that Dr Ratzsch is a legitimate academic at Calvin College, even if he is a creationist, and also note that speaking at a creation conference does not automatically make someone a creationist.

• Eyes come from light sensitive cells in organisms that have no other way to tell where light comes from.
• The common ancestor of all humans is a group of hominids in Africa, probably around 120,000 years ago or so.
• The term "missing link" is meaningless. There are species in the fossil record that are what we expect to exist in human evolution.
• We do see evolution occuring today. There have been many studies published on the matter.
• The world did beat a path to the discoverer of the nature of evolution - his name was Charles Darwin.
• Nobody believes "in" evolution. Practically every scientist who deals with living things believes "that" evolution has occurred and is occurring. To make it clearer, we might say that every scientist is convinced that evolution explains life as we see it. The evidence leaves no alternative. Much of it is listed in various places on this site. Do read the FAQs...

But such individual adaptations will not be passed on to the progeny. If you take your Andean inhabitant's children down to the Pacific coast before they have finished growing lungs, their lungs will be pretty much the same as everybody else's.

Now suppose that a mutation occurs - it need not be in the Andean inhabitants, but so long as it gets there through reproduction. This mutation says, "grow lungs to 20% extra" no matter whether or not the individual grows up in high altitudes. It may be that this is slightly deleterious to sea-level dwellers, but if it finds its way to the high altitudes, then it is going to spread, because bearers of that gene are going to grow more adaptive lungs more "cheaply" than the rest, and so thos ewith it will live longer and survive hard times better than those who do not. Of course, this spreading of the gene will take hundreds of generations, and it could also spread by simple random matings.

Over those many generation, the population adapts - more of its members will have that gene. Eventually, the entire population will be adapted to high altitudes - in fact, they may find they cannot move back down to sea-level.

Now, living in smoggy environments adds a selective pressure to the populations if they remain in them for hundreds of generations. So far, the number of generations living in smoggy environments is probably only a few dozen. Individual adaptations will not be passed on - genetics doesn't work that way - and so thus far we ought not expect that humans have adapted well to urban life.

Essentially, the statement that you make--"According to the second law of thermodynamics a spontaneous reaction always goes from a state of higher order to a state of lower order"--is untrue. Primarily, this statement fails to take into account the input of energy into a system, which in this case is provided by the Sun. Also, even within a closed system, there can be localized decreases in entropy.

I invite you to return and make a more complete review of this site before blithely dismissing it. I also would invite you to examine the peer-reviewed literature cited in the articles here.

While I am not a specialist in neurological science I do read several journals that publish research from the discipline. None of what I have read makes this general assumption. I might also suggest that the researchers themselves act as though they have free will, independent judgment and consciously argue amongst themselves with great purpose.

"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

Ambulocetidae is from the website of Dr. Hans Thewissen, a noted researcher of fossil whales. Notice this portion of the text: "Ambulocetids show more aquatic adaptations than pakicetids, and probably filled an ecological niche similar to modern crocodiles. They are found in near shore environments and probably ambushed part of their prey in the shallows. They could move both on land and in water, and had robust jaws and teeth to handle large struggling prey. The post-cranial skeleton of ambulocetids is well known thanks to a nearly complete skeleton of the species Ambulocetus natans that was found in northern Pakistan."

Perhaps the appropriate question to ask is whether the person who posts a webpage arguing against whale evolution has bothered to keep his page current, reflecting the latest available evidence. There is a great deal of evidence for the evolution of cetaceans. Two FAQs here at talkorigins provide substantial information: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence and Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B.

I have assembled another page of information at Transitional Forms of Whales The Journey from Land to the Deep Sea. But, please remember, the study of whale evolution is ongoing and very productive. The very latest information may not be included in all of these references.

But if you'd like to look at all our information on the Earth, you might try browsing the Age of the Earth and Flood Geology sections of our site. You might also use the search facility to look for all references to "Earth" on our site.

Response: The fact that your lengthy assertions are tolerated here seems to refute your claim.

Reader's Next Satement: "The argument that Evolution is the key to Man's existence, that man is an ever evolving creature, that will one day evolve beyond it's current state into something more advanced, gifted genetically, mentally, and physically."

Response: This is not an argument of science. The future of evolution cannot be predicted. Extinction may be as likely as further evolution, if we judge rightly what we find in the fossil record.

Reader's Next Statement: "... Evolution is comprised of six basic concepts : 1)Cosmic Evolution 2)Chemical Evolution 3)Evolution of stars and planets from Gas 4) Organic Evolution 5)Macro-Evolution and 6)Micro-evolution. Only the last has been observed, the change in color, shape, and size. Organic evolution which is solely based on Macro-Evolution has never been observed. The first five are believed in by faith."

Response: When we speak of evolution we are talking about biological evolution. Your first three items would fall within cosmology or/and possibly abiogenesis, both of which are outside the scope of biological evolution. I suggest visiting this webpage to find out What Evolution Is. Read the book if possible.

Your last three items are what biological evolution is about, although I suspect that you are unclear as to the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, both of which have been observed in nature. Dr. Mayr (in the book cited above) provides a glossary of these terms as used in science. Macroevolution is simply evolution at or above the species level and/or the production of evolutionary novelties such as new structures.

Species level evolution has been observed on numerous occasions. Such an observation has just recently been announced: Discovery of UK's Newest Plant Species.

There are numerous FAQs on this website regarding transitional species and speciation. See especially 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

The archive is filled with essays that do exactly what the reader lays out as the correct approach. The authors critique specific problems in the antievolution literature and present the evidence and arguments which substantiate that position. Many of the essays include links which go directly to the antievolution materials being critiqued, if these are available on a web site.

My personal library has several board-feet of space devoted to antievolutionary books and other literature. I have had an extensive look at the "other side" and have found it unconvincing.

Wesley

It's truly not as bad down here as you might think. We've even got indoor plummin' and 'lectricity 'round these here parts. And don't be so quick to knock the gun culture: Have you ever got drunk and plinked tin cans off a fence post after downing a six-pack, then done doughnuts (Krispy Kreme, if you can get 'em) in your pick-em-up truck in the mud? No? Then you ain't lived, brother!

"Refuted" doesn't make sense in this context. The questions on that page are requests for deeper clarification of common assertions by creationists, and so they could be answered, but not refuted.

I can't help but notice that you haven't even tried to address any of the issues from that page. For instance, it asks that you "give a comprehensive statement of creationism". Can you do so? It asks how you "explain the evidence for conventional science", such as radiometric dating, the fossil record, biogeography, etc. in the context of a coherent creation theory. Can you do that?

The reason these are called "stumper questions" is because creationists typically cannot answer them, and instead resort to bald assertions, such as that they are "old chestnuts...long ago refuted." They do seem to have stumped you.

My question is why would any plant or animal want to reproduce if it would make more compotition (sic) for survival?

Most animals do not "want" or "decide" to reproduce. When mating season hits, instinct kicks in, coitus ensues and the rest is inevitable. Very few species mate for pleasure, and we are the only species that has devised means of birth control.

Also how was the first cell capable of reproduction in the first place?

The first cell likely came long after the existence of self-replicators. For a brief rundown of current research on this subject see Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations.

Also you admitted that the one of the "missing link's (sic)" are (sic) a hoax, I read about evidence that Neardertal (sic) man, Ramapithecus (sic), Nebraska man, java Man and peking man are all hoaxes. Can you give me evidense (sic) that shows they are not?

Sorry, we did not admit that one of the "missing links" is a hoax. The term "missing links" is a misnomer to begin with. We do have an FAQ on the subject of the one famous hoax in paleoanthropology, which is the Piltdown Man specimen from the early 20th century. The hoax was discovered by scientists re-examining the evidence, which is what scientists do. Piltdown Man was never a "missing link", nor did it fit at all with the patterns in the rest of the hominid fossil record. This information can be found at Creationist Arguments: Piltdown Man.

Nebraska Man was not a hoax, it was simply a case of mistaken identification in the early 1920s. A weathered peccary tooth was mistakenly identified as having come from an anthropoid ape (not a "missing link" or a human). 2 years later, upon returning to the same site for further research, the mistake was discovered and published and that was that. This information can be found at Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man.

As far as Ramapithicus, Peking Man and Java Man, none of them were hoaxes. If you read that they were, you read something that was patently false. You can find lots of information about those three subjects in our enormous site devoted to hominids at Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution.

I also have a question about the age of the earth, In 1770 George Buffon said the earth is 70,000 years old, in 1905 the earth was said to be 2 billion years old now it is said to be 4.6 billion years old, so the earth got old 4 years a minute?

No, the earth did not get any older. Our ability to determine the age of the earth improved. There was no means of directly measuring the age of the earth until the development of radiometric dating a few decades ago. Previous estimates, like that done by Lord Kelvin, were based on other things, like the time they presumed it would take to cool a planet, based upon very early assumptions that turned out to be false. With radiometric dating, we can directly measure the age of the oldest rocks on the earth and we have hundreds of measurements that all agree on the same range of 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.

All of the questions that you asked had already been answered in the Archive, had you taken the time to read the FAQs on those subjects.

Your second question about evidence for gradualism (or smooth transitional sequences in the fossil record) can also be found here in the FAQs, and in Gould's book (especially the discussion about foraminifera and the relative contributions of phyletic evolution vs. punk eek). I have additional weblinks for this on a page dealing with Transitional Species.

Both concepts, punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, remain valid components of evolutionary theory. One does not rule out the other. Punk eek is still gradual, requiring many generations for evolution to produce change (most of the time). Neither concept rules out rapid or instantaneous evolution due to hybridization or polyploidy (genomic duplication). Here is an interesting recent case of evolution by hybridization.

A particularly useful FAQ by Dr. Wiens (a devout Christian) is very worth reading. He includes a lengthy section that responds to claims made by Young Earth Creationists. See Wiens on Radiometric Dating .

Finally, I have assembled a page regarding about 20 different dating methodologies. Please keep in mind that some of these are relative dating methods and some are absolute dating methods. Also, a few are still to be considered experimental at this time: Scientific Dating Methods .

The best evidence we have indicates the Earth to be 4.56 ± 0.02 billion years old.

Germs are a fact accepted by everyone. Germ theory explains the matter.

Evolution is a fact. We can observe evolution in action. Evolution theory explains the observations.

People use words such as "fact" and "theory" in different ways. Often, the vernacular or common usage meaning is not the same as the meaning in science. This webpage might help to make things clearer: Fact or Theory?.

They require a designer because they claim that some observed features of organisms could not have come into existance by naturalistic processes. This is due to their assumption that a feature would have no value until all of its component parts are in place.

Kenneth R. Miller has been busy refuting Michael Behe about the flagellum. See The Flagellum Unspun and other essays by Miller.

You may be thinking about the infamous Lady Hope story - this is a fake.

One might expect that creationist are religious. That has no bearing on whether the claims of creationISM are correct. The majority of evolutionists also hold some form of religious beliefs. Yes, theistic evolutionists do believe in a creator. This should surprise no one.

You will find a number of references to organizations dealing with Faith Reconciled with Science issues here. You may wish also to visit the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance website for more information.

The Flat-Earth Society is not representative of all creationists, but it is respresentative of some creationists. Some creationists are in denial about any link between flat-earthism and creationism, therefore we keep the documentation on hand.

Wesley

Hmmm... maybe the earth is an oblate spheroid after all. Thanks for pointing this out to us. After all, such an astute reader could not possibly have missed the disclaimer that was at the top of the page describing the "Flat Earth Society":

DISCLAIMER:
This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The Talk.Origins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Clicking the "Feedback" button above sends feedback to the Talk.Origins Archive, not the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

There is a modified disclaimer now, and the feedback links on the "Flat Earth Society" page have been disabled as a convenience for those readers who cannot be bothered to read disclaimers.

Wesley

You characterized evolution by stating: "It's a world where lizards sprout wings, become birds and fly." I don't know what world you live it, but it's not this one.

Please read up on the evolution of feathers and birds at Dinos to Birds. Despite the fact that you feel you know all the answers, scientists keep discovering new transitional birds in China, and they insist on publishing their data about the evolution of feathers and birds in the major scientific journals.

That is a very silly site.

You are quite mistaken. It is not even sort of based on science -- it's based on the wacky delusions of a very loony fellow, with not one speck of evidence. I suspect you are just trying to spam the url of those crazy raelians around a bit, but you won't get much respect here.

Instead, why you don't you try reading this nice dissection of their cloning claims?

No, not necessarily. No, not necessarily. Yes. I don't see why not. Yes. Yes. Yes. With the truth as I know it.

Does that help?

Really, none of your questions have anything at all to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing about life after death, ethical conduct in society, or true love. So why are you asking us these irrelevant and ultimately rather subjective and silly questions?

The dispute over Stanley Miller's work had to do with estimates of what the primordial conditions were on earth and whether his test conditions reflected them. No one knows precisely what the primordial atmospheric or sea chemistry was. This does not negate Miller's work nor that of many other experimenters who, under a variety of presumed conditions, have created all the primary amino acids from scratch.

It is estimated that on average there are 13-14 alleles for genes in the human genome. Some genes are highly conserved and have no known alleles. Some genes have 50 or more known alleles. There are 30,000 or more genes in ~400,000 or more allelic varieties. This is why there is tremendous variation in our genome and a great amount of raw material for natural selection to work with.

A mutation, if it survives to reproductive age, may add to the amount of variation in a species. Nothing is lost if that mutation does not survive.

Genomes also grow due to copying errors that introduce duplicate genes, chromosome segments and even entire duplicated genomes (polyploidy). These situations do not detract from the amount of genetic information either. They add potentially useful information (it may not be used or expressed at the time it originates). There is a great deal of technical information about this on the web. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences can be searched. Matt Ridley's book Genome is a good introduction for the layman.

Humans, like the other great apes, have about 900 olfactory genes to enable our sense of smell. Nearly 60% of those genes in humans are "broken." We no longer need them for detecting chemical scents (finding ants, fruiting trees, avoiding predators) and they may not be conserved in working order when they mutate. Have we lost information? In a sense we have. Do we still have genes that might be put to other uses? Yes, we do. Are those genes still working in our cousins who need them? In the vast majority of cases, yes. Are the genomes of humans and other great apes roughly of comparable size? You betcha.

Why would a wheat plant have a genome five times the size of ours? Or the amoeba orders of magnitude greater still? Apparent complexity is not necessarilly related to genome size, gene counts, or the "information theories" of creationists. Science still has a long way to go to figuring it all out.

Charles Darwin suggested numerous small steps that could lead from simple light-detection spots to complex eyes. I have placed Darwin's text from both his 1st and 6th editions of Origin of Species side by side on this page. Following that text, you will find many links to information confirming Darwin's hypothesis. Scientists are now unravelling genetic pathways in the vision of numerous organisms and finding many interesting features such as the widely shared Pax-6 control gene. It is becoming very evident that the same inherited vision genes can be expressed, in combination with other genes, very differently in different lineages.

Ultimately, however, such calculations are unreliable for two major reasons. First, they depend on the assumption that salt has always been added to the ocean at about the same rate as it is today -- an assumption that is not necessarily a safe one. Second, the calculations do not take into account the various processes which act to remove salt from the oceans. (The sodium can, for example, be incorporated into clay minerals.)

You should read the following articles before continuing further:

• What is Evolution?
• Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
• Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
• God and Evolution: Can you accept both?

We are like a sailor looking out from a ship. She sees only a few miles around about, and cannot tell how vast the ocean might be, or whether it continues without end.

Our universe is a strange three dimensional ocean. It is becoming less dense as all the "water" rushes away from all other water. All the water (space) we can see out to the horizon was once contained within a much smaller region. There is no direction or center to this expansion.

Do not think of an entity the size of a proton, but of a strange early condition of the universe, immensely hot and inconceivably dense, and of unknown extent. Everything we can now see right out to the furthest reaches of our best telescopes was once entirely contained within a tiny proton-sized region of that seething maelstrom.

Nasa provides some pages which may help at Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

There is a palpable lack of specificity in the reader's complaint. I'd invite the reader to give us a specific example of a "lie" that he found here. Our authors wish to maintain a high standard of accuracy in the materials here, so I'm sure that if the reader finds real problems (and tells us, specifically, what these might be) they will be dealt with in a timely fashion.

On the other hand, I'd leave open the possiblity that it is our authors who know the science, and the reader might change his mind once he learns some.

Wesley

Diamond indicates that Zebras tend toward nasty disposition as they age and that they become "impossibly dangerous." He notes that, in American zoos, more keepers are injured by Zebras than by Tigers.

Unfortunately, I cannot find among his references any work specific to Zebras. You might want to read the book for more information.

Zebra Adventure is a personal account of an attempt to train a zebra.

Speciation has been directly observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See the Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events articles. We also know that common descent occurred, based on many independent lines of evidence. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The assertion that "macroevolution has not been proven" is demonstrably false, and has been for over a century.

As a linguist, you might also appreciate the December 1996 Post of the Month, "Godless Linguistics."

"I found it somewhat hypocritical for the article to lament inexcusable dictionaries which cloud the definition of "evolution" with descriptions of the model of origins, but then to go on to criticize creationists who make the same distinction between proven evolution and the unproven theoretical model which is commonly and mistakenly called "evolution." "

There are two arguments being made here. The first argument concerns the meaning of words or terms within science vs. common or vernacular usage of the same words or terms. The second argument addresses whether the scientific definitions of "evolution" have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt and to a high degree of probability based upon observations and factual evidence.

I run into these arguments every day (in a chatroom the main topic of which is "Evolution vs. CreationISM.") Please note that it is not creation or a Creator that is at issue, but "CreationISM." Almost without exception the creationist opponent of evolution demonstrates an ignorance of the meaning of the terms of science. To avoid much repetitive typing, I prepared a short webpage in which I present the arguments of two well-known scientists who address these subjects: Fact or Theory?.

If you live in the United States, you might also want to consider joining the National Center for Science Education. NCSE deals with what the creationists and intelligent design proponents are doing on both a national level and state by state. They can provide resources that will help if the issue heats up where you are, and their website, journal, and news releases can help you keep up to date on what is going on in other parts of the country.

You should see what the evidence shows rather than base your decisions on the credentials of the people making the arguments. While credentials can be useful and are a factor in evaluating arguments, they aren't dispositive. Note that Gish's practical experience in science ended sometime in the 1960's, and rather a lot of research has occurred since then. Also, Gish often makes arguments concerning topics in which he is himself a layman, and his credentials are of no more import there than any other layman.

As for me, I'm a Ph.D. candidate in wildlife and fisheries sciences. Several of our contributors are scientists with current research programs who speak to their area of specialization. Other contributors are laymen who have taken the time to research a particular topic. How well they have done may be seen in how many universities have chosen to incorporate materials from this site into coursework. I doubt that the estimable Dr. Gish has any similar record of accomplishment. I think that measure of credibility paints a different picture than the one asserted by the reader.

Wesley

For further information, see:

• Copernican System (Rice University)
• The Copernican Model (University of Tennessee)

As to information, this comes up again and again, and it is dealt with in many places on this site, including some excellent feedback responses. A search on the term "information" comes up with most of them in the first page. Creationists define "information" much the same way they define "novelty" - as something that cannot be seen to have evolved...

Good luck in your discussions.

Yet, we do know that some species have an organ that closely related species lack, just as some may normally have a bone that is lacking in closely related species. The question is, do we have opportunities to observe such differences and correlate the differences with genetic differences in the related species?

The field of evolutionary development (Evo-Devo for short) is beginning to offer some fascinating evidence. For instance, recent experiments involving the suppression of certain control genes clearly revert the mammalian jaw to pre-tetrapod state (300 million or so years ago). Quite obviously these control genes convey instructions or information. You will find some references to these studies at the link I will post below.

Recently published Work by David Reznick and Colleagues involving the development of an organ (the placenta) in live-bearer fishes shows that, among very closely related species, there are those that have no, partial, or full placentas, and that placentas have evolved several times in these fishes.

Future work is planned to elucidate, in this species group, the actual genetic differences responsible for the observed differences in placental morphology. Whether this will involve one or a few genes, or control genes, is as yet unknown. It is still "early days" for these kinds of studies.

Two or three decades ago one creationist argument was that we had no (and would never have) evidence for transitional species in birds and whales. Today we have a fine series of specimens in these and other lineages. A decade from now the genetic/morphologic evidence from Evo-Devo will have enlightened us in other areas.

All the information, even in a single field such as ornithology or primatology, is immense. The British Museum holds millions of specimens including a tremendous number of type specimens. They hope to digitize the data over many years, placing it in databases accessible by anyone. But even that great museum probably does not possess ALL the information on any group of organisms.

There are thousands of published monographs (Darwin did one on barnacles). I doubt if any one of them contains ALL the information for the group represented. There has been a lot of discussion lately in major science journals about the need for a collaboration in systematics and taxonomy to place online ALL of the published descriptions of species with quality photographs of the type specimens. This will be a daunting task.

However, there is a great deal of quality information now online. In many cases only species lists are available. Some include extensive photo albums of specimens. Others present species descriptions and skeletal information. One problem is that, for many animal and plant groups, living or fossil, there is at present no expert in a position to assemble a database and catalog ALL the data. Science is a work in progress, and it does not proceed smoothly or at the same pace in all fileds.

Here are just a few links that may be of interest:

TreeBase This collection provides a service for biologists who want to know how organisms are related. There are more than 1750 published phylogenetic trees, mainly for plants, vertebrates, and fungi, along with original data.

North American Fossil Mammal Systematics Database

BIOSIS Internet Resource Guide for Zoology and the Zoological Record

Paleontological Collection Catalogs at the Berkeley UCMP.

Fossil Collections of the World

FishBase offers 27,220 Species, 76,010 Synonyms, 136,975 Common names, 33,790 Pictures, 28,555 References, 905 Collaborators, and is accessed about 4 million times per month. Yet, even it does not contain ALL the data about fish.

Most of the quality information that is available online today did not exist (online) five years ago. Each year we see many new websites adding to the inventory of accessible data. It will take many decades and extensive funding to digitize filing cabinets and libraries bursting with archived data. In the meantime, new research (think of the field of genomics) adds tremendous volumes of raw and analyzed data.

Be patient.

Due to the immense size of humanity, it would take many generations for a new mutation (allele) to become widely established.

Of course, some writers would consider the level of the gene to be "lower than" that of the organism.

[also sent to requested email address]

I'm guilty of giving the answer with maximal economy; the April 1997 feedback is the most detailed.

Basically, many animals lay eggs. The first shelled egg (amniotic egg) evolved about 300 million years ago or so, and the egg laying habit is retained in many modern species, including turtles, snakes, birds, alligators, and chickens. Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were first domesticated about 4000 years ago, from the red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). The galliformes, the order of birds to which chickens belong, probably evolved about 40 million years ago, over which time eggs remained pretty much like, well, eggs.

Therefore the egg came long before the chicken.

Now ask me which came first out of chickens, and chicken eggs... ☺

It may be worth mentioning that dinosaurs are not entirely extinct -- birds are living descendents of one group of dinosaurs.

There are a few claims of other historical dinosaurs. The most common is that the Biblical behemoth (and some add leviathan) were dinosaurs. There are also claims that some ambiguous petroglyphs depict dinosaurs, and mokele mbembe, a creature from African folklore, is claimed to be a real living dinosaur.

You will probably find answers to questions about evolution in the FAQs, by reading the extensive questions and answers in the Feedback archive, or by using the search feature.

If you really cannot find the information you are seeking you may email me and I will try to be of assistance.

The reader may not be able to think of anyone who would find this site constructive, but we do have a list of awards and courses using the Archive, which indicates that others are not so limited.

Wesley

This isn't good. Nothing on the TO Feedback has done more to increase the degree of cynicism of my worldview than the masses of irredeemably stupid people who read that one page mocking flat-earthers, with it's strongly, clearly worded statement that we don't believe in a flat earth, who then go whining about it in feedback.

When they use all caps and a dozen exclamation points, it just makes me despair even more.

For the rest of your statements/claims please see the next post.

We do have some images.

The Archaeopteryx faqs have some monochrome pictures.

The Fossil Horses FAQs have a side bar directing you to the Fossil Horse Cybermuseum where many images are available.

Andrew MacRae has generously made his own copyright images of trilobites freely distributable for non-commercial use provided the original source is indicated. However, trilobites are long extinct; there are some very significant transitional series within the trilobite orders, but they are not really transitional with respect to any modern species.

On the other hand, the excellent Prominent Hominid Fossils faq comes with many images of the fossils in question.