Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

RAF

Startingover : And RAF, are you French Baby Face?
Yes ...
(big change about my belief really ...) It's not the reason why I've took a new nickname just in case you wonder (it's written in my profile)
Before I haven't really read the bible for real myself ... What I've read conceptually in the bible (the details necesserary eventually comming along) is absolutly not what religions are talking about (to me) I don't think I have to force anything on anyone I can just talk about my faith as anyone can in his kind of faith (in whatever) ... but it was clear for me ... It means don't worry, things have to happen, live your life with justice (good balance) towards others ... everything else are detail (contextual or not - contemporary or not) etc ... also it's written that we don't have to agree on the details (so it just cool that way) - it just flows like a nice phylosophy.
RAF

I've decided that this topic too much time out of me

It's cool that you feel confortable with your belief - why not be happy that I feel confortable with my belief?
I don't think I can tell whatever about the subject that you will really understand from my perspective
because you are stuck on books and theory and scientist support (I not was not on the easy side, but I don't care - it's always good to challenge my bellief - but nothing really got me out of it yet)

This became a battle where there was no reason for it to become a battle.
It's like unbelievers need to attack believers at any rate (does that remind you something?)
You have your right, I'm fine with that, but please forget about forcing your belief on others as far as it doesn't hurt.

Feel free to call me wathever ... put "theorical" evidences on this thread
but it's time for me to just say GOOD BYE for good on this one
I guess I can't and I don't even want to say more than what I've did already here about that

I've been curious till now ... I'm really not anymore ... Sorry (this is too tiring for nothing)
Asheron

My friend Apostate Kate,
Finally, we have some things to discuss.
The BOLD is yours
"Someone said that in these discussions science dominates blah blah blah and theists dominate the tone. What I have learned is presenting science here as a theist will only result in any scientific facts being swiftly negated by someone parroting information they learned from Talk Origens. "

I promise you that unlike your 2 gigs of cut and paste regarding the Dr's that no longer believe in Evolution I WILL NOT parrot a thing from talk origins as long as you promise to discontinue the old cut and paste from answersingenesis. AGREED???
I WILL however attempt to swiftly refute you since that is what a debate is.

"Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree."
No one that I ever heard of has said that the Second law is not a physical law??!? I think you are trying to tie two arguments together. ID proponents led by Stuart Pullen have retreated to the origin of the first cellular "life" as the battle line against Evolution. He has tried to use the Entropy argument against the CURRENT abiogenesis hypothesis (hypothesis--read NO EVEDENCE) (the idea that the basic building blocks of life came together in a primordial soup, NOT the spontaneous appearance of maggots as you try to confuse the issue with) The only similarity between the two is the word abiogenesis and presenting the two together is intellectually dishonest.

The Second Law applies to matter but its application to LIFE is slightly different. Life, contrary to the general tendency dictated by the Second Law decreases or maintains its entropy by feeding on Negative Entropy. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a isolated or closed system. The Earth is NOT a closed system (sunlight etc..). Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law. Google the newer Gibbs free energy theories or negative entropy.

"They claim to have proof that adaptation to the environment can create a higher more complex life form yet fail to show legible proof published by qualified scientists."
Who is "they"? What "proof" would you like to debate? Please present a link or proof and we can begin.

"If adaptation otherwise known as survival of the fittest created higher life forms then why is the fossil record full of extinct species?"
The way you present the question would have readers think that "higher" means final and that there is some creation "occurring." Evolution is best thought of as adaptation. I know it’s a semantic thing but it is an important detail. We are never in the FINAL HIGHEST FORM. We are changing all the time. A species can die out for many reasons, among them, disease, natural geological events, climate changes, hunters etc. Above all, a sudden change in environment could make them unfit for living in the new world and evolution does not happen fast enough for the critters to change. The must migrate or die. Why do you perceive this is evidence against evolution?

"Is entropy at work here?"
Did you confuse the anti biogenesis argument and try to use it against the entire theory of evolution? Not sure what entropy would have to do with extinctions. Anyway, See above.

"Do you know how many species have become extinct in the last decade alone? How does survival of the fittest, adaptation fit in here?"
Yes and more are dieing all the time http://www.iucnredlist.org/

S"orry but it looks like entropy at work to me."
See above.

"These are legitamate questions but instead of being answered and addressed will most likely be dismissed and I will be called pathetic and ignorant for presenting them."
DISPROVED I answered them. You are neither ignorant nor pathetic for presenting them.

Your turn
Asheron
acsot

but it's time for me to just say GOOD BYE for good on this one
Looks like my translating career was short-lived! Bonne nuit Corinne.
Seeker4

RAF wrote: "you are stuck on books and theory and scientist support."

Exactly! That says it perfectly.

S4
Apostate Kate

My friend Apostate Kate,
Finally, we have some things to discuss.
The BOLD is yours
"Someone said that in these discussions science dominates blah blah blah and theists dominate the tone. What I have learned is presenting science here as a theist will only result in any scientific facts being swiftly negated by someone parroting information they learned from Talk Origens. "

I promise you that unlike your 2 gigs of cut and paste regarding the Dr's that no longer believe in Evolution I WILL NOT parrot a thing from talk origins as long as you promise to discontinue the old cut and paste from answersingenesis. AGREED???
I have not done that unless the list came from there. I have had that for years as a resource. I don't as a rule read Christian creation sites when doing scientific research. I don't want biased information from either side.
I WILL however attempt to swiftly refute you since that is what a debate is.
This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful. Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway? Why not a calm respectful discussion?
"Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree."

No one that I ever heard of has said that the Second law is not a physical law??!? I think you are trying to tie two arguments together. ID proponents led by Stuart Pullen have retreated to the origin of the first cellular "life" as the battle line against Evolution. He has tried to use the Entropy argument against the CURRENT abiogenesis hypothesis (hypothesis--read NO EVEDENCE) (the idea that the basic building blocks of life came together in a primordial soup, NOT the spontaneous appearance of maggots as you try to confuse the issue with) The only similarity between the two is the word abiogenesis and presenting the two together is intellectually dishonest.
I have been told by an evolutionist that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics was not a law. What I posted was from Wikipedia as the description of biogenesis, then I pointed out that sometimes current scientific theory's have been wrong. The former belief that maggots spontaneously appeared as a result of abiogenesis is just an example I used to show that sometimes current "theories" are later found to have been wrong.
The Second Law applies to matter but its application to LIFE is slightly different. Life, contrary to the general tendency dictated by the Second Law decreases or maintains its entropy by feeding on Negative Entropy. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a isolated or closed system. The Earth is NOT a closed system (sunlight etc..). Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law. Google the newer Gibbs free energy theories or negative entropy.
So negative entropy means that this computer I am using at some point may not need electricity to power itself and may even self evolve into a better machine. Wishful thinking. Closed system or not the 2nd law is functioning on earth as is entropy.
"They claim to have proof that adaptation to the environment can create a higher more complex life form yet fail to show legible proof published by qualified scientists."
Who is "they"? What "proof" would you like to debate? Please present a link or proof and we can begin.
If you believe in evolution I think you would have that proof right? Do you base your beliefs on fantasy or concrete proof? I believe in biogenesis, life comes from life. Not in evolution, life comes as an accident from nothing, then evolves into higher more complex life forms.

"If adaptation otherwise known as survival of the fittest created higher life forms then why is the fossil record full of extinct species?"
The way you present the question would have readers think that "higher" means final and that there is some creation "occurring." Evolution is best thought of as adaptation. I know it’s a semantic thing but it is an important detail. We are never in the FINAL HIGHEST FORM. We are changing all the time. A species can die out for many reasons, among them, disease, natural geological events, climate changes, hunters etc. Above all, a sudden change in environment could make them unfit for living in the new world and evolution does not happen fast enough for the critters to change. The must migrate or die. Why do you perceive this is evidence against evolution
If evolution is dependent on a living organism adapting to its environment into a higher more complex organism then the fossil record needs to be changed. It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt. Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less. Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it. Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die. Small adaptations can be seen such as in e coli becoming more antobiotic resistant, but it is still e coli. The adaptation did not cause it to evolve into a higher life form.
Did you confuse the anti biogenesis argument and try to use it against the entire theory of evolution? Not sure what entropy would have to do with extinctions. Anyway, See above.
Entropy as a law, as a whole is as simple as it is complex. This computer will turn to dust, it will not evolve into a higher organism. You will die. I will die and turn to dust. The only way life continues is by biogenesis, not abiogenesis. Dust will never turn into life, but all life turns into dust.
You are neither ignorant nor pathetic for presenting them
Thank you. Sorry for the large type and all the red. I tried to make the font smaller and for some reason, entropy I'm sure, I could not.
Sincerely,
Kate
dark angle

missing links have more and more discovered every year! check this:http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/top10_missinglinks.html stephen howking said that the existence of complex system (like life) actually may have accelerated more entrophy in our universe, or something like that.(his book brief history of time)
tetrapod.sapien

if anyone is interested in learning more, a la the whole point of the thread (detractors have a way of confusing everyone with their verbosity), you should check out seattleniceguy's eight part installment: Evidence for Evolution. really well written, and aimed at people trying to get a grasp on the theory itself.
enjoy! thanks SNG!
Retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx
Cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx
What evolution is not: The role of randomness: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87711/1.ashx
Mitochondrial DNA, part 1: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87781/1.ashx
Mitochondrias DNA, part 2: Neandertals: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88271/1.ashx
Atavisms and Vitamin C: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88649/1.ashx
Isolated Species: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/89867/1.ashx
The Bible Requires It: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/90287/1.ashx
The Panda's Thumb: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/91134/1.ashx
tetra
RAF
Ascot
I came back here for you, thinking that you may have worked on it and it wouldn't be fair for me to just say good bye as you was willing to do it for me. that was nice I thank you for you to want to make that effort for me (and any Frenchy)
I'm glad you didn't get into a translation job yet (if it was only for me), however if you are interested in this thread to put you input in it do it in English for everybody (in French if you think that people read it better in French)
My answer to your previous post and my good bye post on this thread was a bit short :

The reason why I've said good bye is that since they don't take into consideration what any debaters even scientific have against the theory itself (those who need to have this theory supported will not give you information against they will avoid them and just get more explicite about why they think it possible) soyou can go on and on without real proof and just read books with no debates but only explanation about what they think could be possible with no archeologic materiel (that we should have at this point) to prove it ... I guess they will always feel that they are right anyway (with no real evidence) ... since there is no archeologic real evidence this theory can only stay a theory (and that their might be an other explanation even by essence or without spirit - just because it looks like essence and spirit is not scientifically approachable).

So the debate is going like this :
you don't have evidence of God (Well I didn't say I have ... why? because I know it's improvable it's a question of belief in what is a spirit in every aspect (all in one, each in all)
and on the other side we have evidence on material wich only want to proove a theory is right with no archeological material to prove it, (that we should have to prove it)
So of course it doesn't lead anywhere (you believe what you want to believe).

Again thank you Ascot

(Now I really think there is really nothing to add on my side).
tetrapod.sapien

since there is no archeologic real evidence this theory can only stay a theory
if anyone is interested, here are references to archaeological materila supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection regarding transitional vertebrate fossils. i post it in it's entirety to make a point that may be lost on those who choose not to click on the following link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
also, here is a definition of "theory" from princeton wordnet:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
and here are the references to the archaeological evidence:
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.
Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York.
Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford. [collection of papers. Good intro to current thinking on many intermediate fossils from various groups.]
Benton, M.J. 1989. Patterns of evolution and extinction in vertebrates. Pp 218-241 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution. Unwin Hyman, London.
Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on discovery of Ambulocetus natans]
Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770
Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York. [general text. Only chapter 22 is concerned with species-level evolution and transitions; the other chapters generally describe only genera or families.]
Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.]
Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology 12:203-216.
Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 21(1):123-131.
Chuankuei-Li, R.W. Wilson, M.R. Dawson, and L. Krishtalka. 1987. The origin of rodents and lagomorphs. Chapter 3, pp. 97-108, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. HH Genoways. Plenum Press, New York.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.
Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York. [An accessible summary of large-scale trends in vertebrate history. Does not discuss species-level evolution at all, though.]
Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642.
Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254.
Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia). Palaont. Z. 57:213-230. [transitions among Miocene rodents.]
Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age Of Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new interpretations. Science 262: 845-846.
Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Pantheon Books, New York.
Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. [standard text on theories of how evolution occurs; doesn't address evidence for evolution per se].
Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28.
Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. In: Patterns Of Evolution As Illustrated By The Fossil Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp. 469-500. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.
Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc., 1:205-210.
Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144.
Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41.
Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.
Gould, S.J. 1983. Hen's Teeth And Horse's Toes. W.W. Norton, New York. [The title essay discusses evidence that some species retain old genes for traits that they no longer express -- teeth in chickens, side toes in horses. ]
Gould, S.J. 1993. Eight Little Piggies. W.W. Norton, New York. [collection of essays. Title essay is about early amphibians.]
Gould, S.J. 1994. Hooking Leviathon by its past. Natural History, May 1994.
Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.
Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract]
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.
Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad. Bayern. 16:15-36.
Kemp, T.S. 1982. Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals. Academic Press, New York.
Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London. [this is a great little book; very clearly written, short, and well- illustrated.]
Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.
Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.
Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Aldine, Chicago.
Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York.
Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95.
Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720.
Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334.
Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski, C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne). University of California Press, Berkeley.
MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245-257.
MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158.
MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature 336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost everyone these days.)
MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus --> Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.]
Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.
Martin, R.A., and A.D. Barnosky, eds. 1993. Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America. Cambridge University Press, New York. [collection of papers. Particulary useful: Goodwin on prairie dogs, Hulbert & Morgan on armadillos, Lister on mammoths and moose, Martin on rodents.]
Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology 34:503-513.
Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York. [collection of papers]
Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles. Nature 349: 324-326.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont. 13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract]
Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation, Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209.
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.
Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.
Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216.
Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435. [This is about the Las Hoyas bird. ]
Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves) from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series No.36 [Formal description of the Las Hoyas bird.]
Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science vol.255, pp.845-848.
Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal distribution. Science 251:1063-1065.
Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. [outdated but still the most accessible intro to horse evolution.]
Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal Phylogeny, vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York. [a compilation of articles on different groups of mammals. Volume 1 covers early Mesozoic mammals, monotremes, and marsupials, volume 2 covers Cenozoic placentals. Excellent intro to the current state of knowledge of mammal relationships, though to get the most from it you should be familiar with current phylogenetic methodology and vertebrate morphology.]
Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210-212.
Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx vol.11, pp. 1-47. [Description of the newest specimen of Archaeopteryx, with some more features that unite birds with dinosaurs. Summary and all figure legends are in English, the rest is in German.]
Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30 (a monograph). Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306- 312.
Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28.
Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281. [commentary on Australopithecus ramidus]
MAGAZINE ARTICLES by unknown authors:
Science News 133:102. "Bird fossil reveals history of flight".
Science News 145(3):36. "Fossil Whale Feet: A Step in Evolution" [Ambulocetus natans & other recent whale discoveries]
Science News 140:104-105. 1991. "The Lonely Bird." [summary of the Protoavis controversy.]
Science News 138:246-247. 1990. "Chinese bird fossil: mix of old and new".
tetra

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

Share this