ANT has never shown I or creationists lied on Haeckel. She erroneously, even after being repeatedly told, that I never claimed disproving Haeckel was the death knell for evolution. But it does illustrate the way evos handle data.
BY definition then, bacteria evolving into something new would not be restricted by an existing niche because, by definition, they would be something new and so a new niche. So if we are going to be technical, your argument fails.
I am simply using niche in the general sense you guys have done.
I heard it from a Botany Professor at NC State that went around to college campuses with a slide-show presentation. Actually, I heard it before that but he went into more detail.
You didn't answer my questions. I am willing to listen.
Then when and where did the ID intervene, and how?
Pay Attention:
Oh, and prove your claim on the extinction event. You think there were no fish in the ocean and waters?
This thread is really about natural selection and whether microevolutionary processes add up to major new life forms, not ID. As you know, I've been willing to talk about ID but I started this thread to be more narrow so there could be some understanding among many evos that have never heard of how natural selection reduces genetic variation, didn't really understand microevolution that well, etc,....
Fine. I promise not to talk about ID in this thread any more.
Fish yes. Large carnivores? Not so much. And remember, ecology has only ever seen depauperate oceans--we know that oceans had MUCH more biomass in the past, particularly in large organisms (human-food-sized and up). This is blatant bate-and-switching.randman said:
Bull. A new organism does not necessarily evolve into a new niche. The problem is that there is a finite amount of energy in any ecosystem (along with other limiting factors, though energy seems to be the most prominant long-term), and therefore only so many niches available. More complex ecosystems keep energy bioavailable longer, and can have more niches, but the fleas on fleas have a lower limit. Thus there are only a certain number of niches possible. We can see this clearly in the fossil record--after major mass extinctions (Permo-Triassic and Danian-Maastrichtian in particular) organisms evolved which were remarkably similar, due to similar niches. You had your fast predators, your ginormous herbivores, your myriads of small herbivores and insectevores, bullet-shaped marine carnivores, etc. These niches were COMPLETLEY OPEN--there was nothing to fill them, because the things that had filled them had all died. The things that made the niches possible had died in some cases. Yet, due to the hard limit of bioavailable energy, the same niches popped up over and over again.
This is a bold-faced lie. ANTpogo has clearly demonstrated that Creationists continuously lie about Haeckel. Merely bringing his drawings up as something scientists still use is a lie. Though with randman lies are to be expected....
Ok, what specific niches did they fill? Prove it. I don't think you've thought that deeply about the subject.
So you found a reference to a smear from the Infidels site going back years and years, and yet you guys pretended things like "evo" was a recent invention.
I may or may not. There are plenty of evos here willing to talk and very few others. So I may just start ignoring folks that don't respond civilly or who make up a bunch of false smears.