where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

I am not debating that there is evolution within a species, as Darwin proved. But after the discovery of evolution within a species Darwin just ASSUMED that since there is evolution within a species, that there COULD be evolution between species. where is that evidence? Where is the hard evidence of a creature in between ape and man.

Perhaps you should jump into this thread here:
Message 260It has been quiet for awhile.It might help if you defined what you would consider as evidence. Frequently those not knowledgable in the field haven't thought this through very well.Also: it doesn't matter too much what someone assumed 150 years ago when we have lots of evidence of new species. In fact, a lot of creationists have agreed that new species and new genera arise. In fact, they think they arise much faster than even very radical evolutionists do.Perhaps you should know what those in your camp are saying as well as knowing a bit about evolutionary biology before making statments that are too strong?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-29-2005 12:37 AM

I an afraid that david's ignorance (lack of knowledge about evolution) is vaster than that.We need him to get into defining what he thinks evolution says in order to understand where he is coming from.

It's all around you, just as it was all around Darwin. If there's no evolution between species, then where are all the new species coming from?

What do you mean by evolution between species?Do you mean apes and humans breeding and forming a new species? Evolution does not say this anywhere.Or do you mean the gradual transition of one species through time, population isolation and genetic drift that differentiates the populations and ends up with sufficient differences that the two populations no longer interbreed? This has been observed, so this concept is validated.We see evidence of this in process with varieties within species, and especially with ring species where you have a number of varieties forming a ring around some obstacle and the species that meet on the far side consider the other varieties different species and do not mate with them even though there are hybreds all around the other side of the ring. We see this with horses and zebras and donkeys having sterile offspring when bred in captivity. We see this with the races of man showing marked visual differences that lead to reproductive isolation tendencies.Darwin predicted it from the information that he had observed and studied. It was more than an assumption, it was a hypothesis based on evidence.The "hard evidence" of a common ancestor for apes and humans is multiple sourced:We have genetic evidence of not just 96% identical genomes, but the errors in the benes in the same places show that there was a common ancestor around 6-7 million years ago.We have fossil evidence of humans back in time to much more ape-like beings that were still bipedal and toolmakers, the transition showing more in the human lineage due to greater evolution having taken place in humans (likely driven by sexual selection for creativity) than in apes in general and chimpanzees in particular.We have geographical evidence from where the fossils have been found that show that they were living in the same area of africa 6-7 million years ago, before humans spread over the world.And we have behavioral similarities between humans and chimps (and also bonobos - also called pygmy chimps, although they are a different species - who are gay, bisexual, group sex loving hedonists who generally have sex before every meal according to some reports). The news report of the female chimp rescuing the child that fell into the zoo display and taking him to the entrance where the keepers enter the yard.The evidence of evolution "between ape and man" is that man is an ape, just one with a massive ego.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Modulous, you guys keep dodging the problem, saying we don't see the fossils due to fossil rarity and stuff like that, but then say, well, we do see some so our predictions hold.Take a step back and look at the evidence with an open mind.We see all sorts of species or basic types of creatures, particularly in whales, with numerous fossils for them, but we just don't see the transitionals.Is it logical to keep thinking one creature can have thousands of fossils, but we don't see any of it's immediate ancestors, nor the creatures that evolved from it?In other words, if fossilization is so rare, then why do we see numerous examples for just one species or family of species?The fact is a comprehensive and logical view of the fossil data is that either species did not evolve, or that some other mechanism is involved to explain evolution than is presented by evos.

Hi randmanThis has been expained to you before. I'm not sure why you don't get it.Here are some ways that a species can evolve: There could be several variations of the second mode. In some cases the parent species might persist, while in other cases it might go extinct over a number of generations.What you are seeing in the fossil record, is that the second mode of evolution is the more common.

And it has been explained to you and others ad nauseum why either of these modes would leave more fossils, due to acheiving at some point significant size, but you still "don't get it."Specifically, note where you state that:"Because the group size is small during the transition, there is a good chance of no fossilization. It is only after the successor group has become well enough adapted, and its population begins to enlarge, that the likelihood of fossilization starts to increase."You admit that at some point even with this type of evolutionary mode that the population will gain a significant size in adaptation.The problem is that within the lines of theorized evolution, say of whale evolution, we would expect to see most of the significant new features occuring in fairly large and well-established groups, according to your scenario, but we don't.It is likely we would not see a fine-grained change, but no one is demanding them.But we should see fossils of every major new features present in the fossil record, and we don't.For example, with whales families, we see every new feature present in the fossil record going back 30 million years according to evo dating.We see something like 75 species in 2 suborders within a fairly narrow range of differences.The differences between these suborders and the suppossed whale ancestors are massive; so much so that we should expect to see several different suborders between them.We don't see that though.You theorize that small isolated groups evolved leaving no fossils, but even you admit they would eventually grow to larger groups of species.Where are the larger groups of species identified with every new whale-like feature?You have a handful, and those are problematic, and they don't come close to identifying the vast majority of emerging new features that should have been there.Are you proposing that the vast majority of these whale features, something like 95%, occurred all with one small barely making species evolving into another barely making, etc,....?Heck, if that scenario was true, it would be evidence of Intelligent Design because it does not fit with what we know of unaided, observed natural processes.

This belongs in the whale thread. In that thread you did NOT establish what we would expect to see. In fact, you left it unfinished.

We don't see ALL the fossils due to the rarity, however we predict we'll see fossils that are transitionals between land mammals and whales. We then find these fossils. Prediction -> Prediction confirmed.That's not dodging the problem, that is using the Theory to predict history, and then finding evidence that history is the same as the Theory predicted. What about the transitional that was discussed in the post you are replying to? According to the Theory, what would an immediate ancestor look like?Question: How many of the following fossils have been found?

• Himalayecetus subathuensis
• Pakicetus inachus
• Protocetus
• Dorudon atrox
• Zygorhiza
• Basilosaurus cetoides
• Prosqualodon
• Squalodon
• Eurhinodelphis

I'm having difficulty finding references, help me out? Its a good question, I know that you know that there are two possible answers to that question. One is that it is just the way the cookie crumbled, the other was discussed by Gould. If they didn't evolve, someone is messing with our heads Maybe some other mechanism is involved, new ideas are being had all the time.

This was explained more than once in the "whale" thread. Perhaps you should go back over that.

Where do I admit that? It seems you are misreading.What I actually wrote and you quoted, was: It isn't guaranteed that a population will ever grow large enough to have a good chance of leaving fossils. Some species occupy small niches, and never develop large populations. There could be many successive transitions during a period of low population, and later environmental changes are such that the population blooms.Gaps in the fossil record are a problem for those attempting to reconstruct natural history (see Science vs History - a source of equivocation?). It isn't a problem for the theory of evolution. ToE does not predict that there will be fossils. It only predicts that when fossils are found, they will turn out to be consistent with the theory. Why would we expect this? It isn't obvious to me. Some of the new features might even be exaptions - side effects of the strong selection pressures that a small group went through. The populations of intermediate species might have been quite small, occupying narrow niches. I'm glad to hear that you are not demanding them. But now you are demanding them.It isn't obvious at all as to why we should expect this. The fossil record is not time lapse photography.I'm not a paleontologist. I don't have detailed knowledge of the fossil record for whales and their ancestors, so I can't comment on those kinds of specifics. Perhaps someone else will. No, I don't theorize that, as I explained above. In the case of whales, they did eventually grow to a decent population size. But many ancestral species might have remained small. And even if a large group, it isn't certain that there will be many fossils - that would likely depend on the kind of niche that they are in.The question of the history of modern whales is, technically, a question of natural history. If you think that the history has been wrongly constructed, then you should come up with an alternative and see if anybody can punch holes in your alternative history.

Modulous, I would suggest that the predictive aspect of ToE needs more precision with respect to the fossil record, specifically that if you are going to claim ToE predicts such and such, then there should be predictions of specific quantities of fossils of species relative to specific traits.Otherwise, evos could just be finding a group of creatures with perhaps very, very small similarities, such as a tooth and cranial cavity expansion, that is similar due to other reasons, but because it "fits" with what you guys want, the claim is erroneously made that it is part of the evolutionary chain or related to it, when it may not be at all.Each feature would have to evolve, right?Perhaps sometimes a couple of features evolved together. I can grant that.But there should be some sort of predictive analysis by evos of how many different strains of creatures with specific features would probably have evolved, and how many fossils there should be.To date, we see nothing like this, and imo, ToE has failed miserably in predicting what we would find in the fossil record.It's like a historian claiming a major battle took place in a certain place, and after much looking, there is one or 2 bullets, and he says, hey, we predicted this, but in reality, no, you predicted much more than this would be found, and you offer no analysis explaining based on data why it is not found, and even more absurdly claim critics who dare ask for this data and analysis, that they must explain why the data is not there.This, imo, is a major flaw in evolutionary theory, and frankly, cannot be overcome with arguments. There has to be detailed analysis of data explaining this, and there just isn't.Where are the comparitive studies of numbers of fossils in living whale families compared to numbers of their theoritical ancestors to show why we should not see fossils of their ancestors?

You speak as though fossilization occurs at some given rate. It's a purely hit and miss affair.

The ToE should not make any such predictions. If we plug in the idea of 'common ancestor', the ToE will say that between any two fossils there would have been an organism that is transitional between the two. The ToE makes no predictions on fossilization rates, nor should it. Why should it? There are too many unknowns to attempt such predictions. You should be criticizing Taphonomy for its perceived failures. People who sort out the natural history may well be doing this, if their claim is not contradicted by the ToE it is not contradicted by the ToE. You may be right, any given organisms might just coincidentally fit into the chain when it shouldn't really. I doubt they are all coincidences, since then we are entering the twilight zone. Why on earth would ToE do this? The ToE states that populations change through time, such that after a sufficiently long period of time new taxonomic orders will be required, it provides some mechanisms for how this can happen. Paleontology/natural history uses this theory, and its mechanisms to try and piece together a timeline of life on earth over time. Since some aspects of the mechanism are unpredictable, and other aspects require knowledge we cannot possess (the precise nature of the environment, the conditions in organisms female reproductive elements, all the possible predators and prey, the exact weather cycles, etc etc etc there is simply no way to predict to the level of detail you suggest. Different situation though. We know that the remains of major battles don't decay away to nothing unless an unusual event occurs, much of them do, but its a far cry from fossilization rates.