Lack of transitional fossils: another evolutionary dilemma?

CiY127

New member
CiY127, not only do you fail to respond to The Barbarian's extensive discussion of whale evolution (which you were intent on discussing/discrediting earlier), but you begin with this absolute gem;

Instead of falling back on the typical creationist mumbo jumbo [evolution is unprovable, micro = good/macro = bad, God could have did it!], why don't you (for once) just stick to the evidence? To be honest, it seems that you will never give TOE the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how much evidence you are presented with. No scientific theory is provable, yet you seem to demand nothing short of an irrefutable proof from evolutionists. You will never get it. Just take a look a gravity. For all we know, there are mysteriously invisible leprechauns who surround us at all times and pull objects to the ground with their invisible magnets. There is no way to prove that the current theory of gravitation is correct, but an abundance of evidence seems to suggest that we are on the right track. The same goes for evolution.

Will you at least be honest and admit that your primary objection to TOE is theologically based...not scientifically?

First of all, I don't object to the theory of evolution. I do think that it is an honest science looking to explain the world we live in. I find no fault with that. No theory is anything other than a theory until it is proved. Yet some things that were theory have been proved, that is the nature of science, that is what science is all about. But it does trouble me that evolutionists move beyond the science, the observable facts, to claim what cannot be claimed.

I had no interest in discrediting the whale evolution. I seriously asked the question, how could the whale survive the evolutionary process. Until today, I had not heard of an interediary step and wanted to know the discovery/evidence of this find.

I truly would like to know why an evolutionist cannot admit that the science is not complete and the possiblity of God's hand in the process (in some form or another) is still feasible.

For me, I live a theologically based life, I do so because of an abundance of evidence on which I base my faith.

Finally, I am NOT a creationist. I do think that there is some very sound evidence for a lot of the theory of evolution; there does exist as well some not so sound premises that are used as supports for the theory that must be overcome. Neither negates my theology nor my belief in God. Doesn't even challenge it in the least.

Agape,
CiY
 

Skeptic

New member
Not necessary. The experts agree on the lack of transitional forms between the major groups.
Most experts agree on why they have found the number of transitional forms they have found!

Scientists now realize that the number of transitional forms they have found is about the number they should expect to find, given what they now know about geology and the process of fossilization.

Want more quotations?
Find some quotations from current scientists explaining that many discoveries in recent decades have demonstrated that Darwin was wrong about certain details, but that Darwin was right about the big picture of evolution.
 

JustinFoldsFive

New member
CiY127 said:
No theory is anything other than a theory until it is proved.

Scientific theories are unprovable. And, as Barbarian noted earlier, you seem to be confusing "hypothesis" and "theory". You might want to read through the following link in order to clear up your numerous misconceptions about the nature of science;

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

CiY127 said:
Yet some things that were theory have been proved, that is the nature of science, that is what science is all about.

No, that is not what science is all about. Like I said, read through the link I provided.

By the way, what "things that were theory" have been proven? I'm curious.

CiY127 said:
I truly would like to know why an evolutionist cannot admit that the science is not complete and the possiblity of God's hand in the process (in some form or another) is still feasible.

Most evolutionists are theists! And even as an atheist, I can openly admit that TOE may be completely and totally false, and that God is behind the entire process. However, based on the overwhelming abundance of evidence in favor of TOE, your hypothesis seems very, very unlikely.

CiY127 said:
For me, I live a theologically based life, I do so because of an abundance of evidence on which I base my faith.

Care on sharing this evidence? An enumerated list should suffice.

CiY127 said:
Finally, I am NOT a creationist. I do think that there is some very sound evidence for a lot of the theory of evolution; there does exist as well some not so sound premises that are used as supports for the theory that must be overcome. Neither negates my theology nor my belief in God. Doesn't even challenge it in the least.

Then you must not interpret Genesis literally?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).
 

Skeptic

New member
==============
Misconceptions

"It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils.[1] This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species."

source
==============
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species."

Yes, but we're not talking about species, we're talking (and the quotations I posted are talking) about transitions between major groups.
 

JustinFoldsFive

New member
bob b said:
Yes, but we're not talking about species, we're talking (and the quotations I posted are talking) about transitions between major groups.

Major groups of what? Wait for it...

Wait for it...

:idea:

SPECIES!

:doh:
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin

Chapter X

On The Imperfection of the Geological Record




(what do you think he talks about in that chapter?) :idea:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I notice bob still lacks enough confidence in his "quotes" to put the issue to a test. C'mon bob. Name two major groups said to be closely related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

If you're worried about posting a rare exception, give me five examples, and we'll take a look.

C'mon. You don't want to look like you're afraid to see the evidence, do you?
 

Skeptic

New member
Yes, but we're not talking about species, we're talking (and the quotations I posted are talking) about transitions between major groups.
What about this? ....
As we progress through the Phanerozoic, life gets progressively more similar to modern biota. In the Cambrian (~540 to 500 Mya), we find predominantly invertebrate sea organisms, such as trilobites, sponges, and echinoderms. During the next 100 million years sea life is dominated by invertebrates and strange jawless fish, which besides chordate worms are the only vertebrates around at the time. More familiar jawed fish only appear during the late Silurian, about 410 Mya. Ninety percent of the earth's sediments, up until the Devonian (~400 Mya), are devoid of any land animals.

source
There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:

a. Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
b. Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
c. Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
d. Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
e. Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
f. Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).

There are living invertebrate chordates (Branchiostoma [Amphioxus], urochordates [tunicates]) and living basal near-vertebrates (hagfish, lampreys) that show plausible intermediate forms.

source
 

Sealeaf

New member
Transitional forms should not be expected to appear in the fossil record. Asking for them is like asking for a photo of the bullet in flight in a murder case. We have the pistol. We have the bullet recovered from the dead person but the defense is claiming that without a photo of the bullet in flight we have no evidence of it getting from the pistol to the victim.

Transitional forms are just that "transitional", they are not established species, they are scattered induviduals. They are bullets in flight.

The nature of the natural order is to recycle all materials. Dead animals and plants decompose and return their elements to the environment. Very rarely this system breaks down and a dead thing stays intact long enough for its shape to be filled in with non organic minerals. That is a fossil. There has to be a population of millions of individuals living over a significant number of generations to reasonably expect any fossils. Only established species will have a chance of leaving any fossils.
 

Skeptic

New member
Here's more for you to dismiss, Bob. ....

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.


The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

a. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

b. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

c. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

d. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

e. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

f. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

g. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

h. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

i. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

j. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

k. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).


The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

a. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

b. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

c. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

e. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

f. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

g. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

h. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

i. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).


The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

a. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

b. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

c. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

source
 

Skeptic

New member
This deserves repeating:

"We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years." - source
 

Mr Jack

New member
Scientific theories are unprovable. And, as Barbarian noted earlier, you seem to be confusing "hypothesis" and "theory". You might want to read through the following link in order to clear up your numerous misconceptions about the nature of science;

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
With respect, this is idealised bull. It's a popular teaching in modern science education, to be sure, but it has almost no relation to how the terms have been used both historically and currently. The fact is that Scientists use the term Theory in the same way everyone else does, it's just that things carry on being called Theories after there are stacks of evidence supporting them.

If you disagree; I challenge you to present historical evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity was ever referred to as a hypothesis, ditto evolution - hell, I don't know of a single documented case where something that has later been referred to as a Theory started out being referred to as a Hypothesis. Or for a more current example, consider String Theory, for which there remains no empirical evidence.

The notion of a special Scientist's meaning of Theory is a myth; and one we should stop peddling.
 

Mr Jack

New member
Not necessary. The experts agree on the lack of transitional forms between the major groups. Want more quotations?
This is science, bob, and it's great strength is verifiability - present the evidence and we can consider it. The words of 'experts' are only as good as their evidence.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
With respect, this is idealised bull. It's a popular teaching in modern science education, to be sure, but it has almost no relation to how the terms have been used both historically and currently.

Hmmm...

At least as far back as Darwin. Here, in a letter to Huxley, he refers to an idea that is not yet sufficiently confirmed by evidence, as an "hypothesis."

The case stands thus; in my next bookf5 I shall publish long chapters on bud—& seminal—variation, on inheritance, reversion, effects of use & disuse &c. I have also for many years speculated on the different forms of reproduction.f6 Hence it has come to be a passion with me to try to connect all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The M.S which I wish to send you gives such a hypothesis; it is a very rash & crude hypothesis yet it has been a considerable relief to my mind, & I can hang on it a good many groups of facts.f7 I well know that a mere hypothesis, & this is nothing more, is of little value; but it is very useful to me as serving as a kind of summary for certain chapters.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-4837.html

And yet, for evolutionary theory itself, he writes:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Origin of Species, p. 154

The fact is that Scientists use the term Theory in the same way everyone else does,

We don't. Things aren't properly theories until there is enough evidence to verify them.

If you disagree; I challenge you to present historical evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity was ever referred to as a hypothesis, ditto evolution - hell, I don't know of a single documented case where something that has later been referred to as a Theory started out being referred to as a Hypothesis.

See above. Scientists today don't go on about hypotheses, but they still make them, and then go test them, to see if they qualify as good theories.

The notion of a special Scientist's meaning of Theory is a myth; and one we should stop peddling.

Well, it's as old as Darwin, at least. And he used "hypothesis" and "theory" as they are presently taught.

Isaac Newton certainly used the words as they are taught today:

"I am content that the Reverend Father calls my theory an hypothesis if it has not yet been proved to his satisfaction. But my design was quite different, and it seems to contain nothing else than certain properties of light which, now discovered, I think are not difficult to prove, and which if I did not know to be true, I should prefer to reject as vain and empty speculation, than acknowledge them as my hypothesis."
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath608/kmath608.htm

The methodology comes so naturally that we often forget what we are doing. But we still do it.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289).
 

Mr Jack

New member
And once again, Bob declines to look at the evidence and instead hides behind quotations. Nice.
 
Top