evolutionary chain

Hello, Christian.Probably one of the most complete chains (due to its being relatively recent) is the chain that links an ancient bipedal (yet chimpanzee-like) ape with modern humans: You can find more about these ancient hominids on TalkOrigins and at this site. Kathleen Hunt has written an essay describing the transitions seen in the fossil record for several major lineages. Furthermore, the descriptive articles at Palaeos also have some good information about the transitions (look at the cladograms; each entry on each cladogram is a known fossil species). Palaeos, though, can be a bit difficult to navigate if you aren't used to it.Hope this helps.Added by edit:
Oops. I just realized you asked for a chain of transitions between major groups. The human lineage I provided is within a relatively minor group. I hope the other links are helpful, though.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Oct-2005 10:17 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

To add to what Ned says:Given two species in the fossil record, it is generally impossible to tell whether one of the species evolved from the other. All we can generally do is notice that the two species are very closely related, and then conclude that the one with the more primitive characteristics is closely related to a common ancestor.In the lineages that people have (fish to tetrapod, synapsid to mammal, Australopithecine to human) all we can do is notice that the species that are found make a nice series of transitions; the hominid species in my earlier post, for example, show a nice smooth gradual transition from ancient apes to modern humans -- the gaps are relatively small and it is easy to imagine how those gaps should be filled.If one is looking for a series of definite ancestor species and descendent species, then one is going to be disappointed. It simply is not possible to distinguish ancestor/descendent species with species that are merely near relatives.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

The Tulsa Zoo took out their horse evolution display because of it's inaccuracies.

---

This may very well be false. I found the following: Judging from one book that he has written, it would appear that Dr. McFadden is an evolutionist expert on the evolution of horses.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Also, I'm still looking for more detailed information on horse evolution,if anyone knows of any sources.

---

Also, besides the book to which I linked in a previous post (which might be more technical than you want, although sometimes the technical literature can be great reading, in my opinion), here is a very brief summary on horse evolution, although I don't know how up-to-date it is.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It would appear to me that the recent posts on horse evolution are very much on topic. Since the OP was a challenge to provide evidence for evolution in the form of transitional species, examples would certainly be called for; since this recent subthread was started by the claim that horse evolution is not such an example, the discussion of horse evolution is warranted.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

And check out arach's post #186 where he quotes a creationist source that says that modern horse breeds have differing rib counts.

---

And creationists themselves admit that different horse breeds have a common ancestor, so they must admit that evolution can produce different numbers of ribs.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt