Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

Actually, I accept some of the conclusions (these are interpretive, but I think inductively impressive), as I mentioned in my reply to another forum member.I am going to be the good skeptic and ask the questions about interpretation that too many are allowed to get away with. We all have 'evidence,' which is fairly boring. As we are playing the game of transitions though, which is an interpretive enterprise with the evidence we all have, interpretation is going to be involved trying to show trends, no trends, limited trends, & catastrophe trends. I do not believe there are brute facts out there, but that we bring a grid to the game from the start. Sometimes somebody's got to ask a few good questions to point this bias (whether it is a good interpretive bias or not) to a few.It is the story about transitions that is told by neo-Darwinian influenced paleontology that I am questioning in the distant past (say 10 million years ago and more). Since Dr. Adequate was probably (by inductive reason) born sometime in the 20th century, he wasn't able to confirm through repeatable processes (nor any of his fellow human species) things that happened so long ago in the range of 430 million to 420 million years ago, as the article link mentions. Nor were any of Dr. Adequate's species with reason (present human reason in the brain) available to check things out inductively. I have no reason to buy into an interpretation just because someone says I want to deny 'all' the evidence. I can just assert that Dr. Adequate wants to deny 'all' the evidence, which is a fairly hard to believe statement for anyone (sounds very deductive). Evidence is not impressive left to itself. The story about how those things progressed (or maybe de-evolved) is far more interesting.I should point out that if the human brain mass is evolving even now in the broad culture or at least in the best thinkers of culture and their transitions today, that the postmodern culture is the one which is at present on the ascendancy. The modernistic idea that the evidence is all there is, no interpretation, is thus retrograde. Surely then, in the interpretive scheme of neo-Darwinian paleontology, someone of its best thinkers with a human brain mass would 'catch up.'Objective statements of natural selection leading to separate animals like asilisiraus from a previous form (which also diverged to dinosaurs) require adding in the subjective belief that a fossil we have fits into a line connecting the ‘similar’ into a descending family.Edited by davids-evolution, : Grammatical/clarity of argument.

Handprint.com (I don't know enough about the site really) has an interesting comment that is relevant to this discussion forum, I just found it in my own reading. This isn't a reply so much as a statement I came across:"The human fossil record from about 2.5 to 1.0 million years ago is especially sparse only about 50 individuals are known, many of them represented by only a single tooth or jaw fragment and the evolutionary connections from australopithecus to homo erectus, including the evolutionary relationships between habilis, ergaster and erectus, are in dire need of clarification. "This link can be found by: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html.I would on this seperate issue from dinosaurs that with humans, I would not want to build a transitional structure on a jaw fragment or ten. Or some unrelated part like a knee cap by itself in a few. That is maybe enough to guess, but starts to make the historical science side of paleontology look a lot more like interpretation than science. That' my point basically.

You need to look at this like a scientist. The genetic evidence that humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor (ca. 5-7 million years ago) is rock solid. The genetic evidence is so overwhelming that common ancestry is considered a fact. That is where the palaeontologists are starting from.What the fossil record affords us is an idea of what happened between that common ancestor and modern humans. Each fossil gives us a clue, even if that clue is small. Lucy, Dakika child, and Ardipithecus ramidus (aka Ardy) tell us one very important thing. The evolution of humans started with bipedalism. It was walk first, big brain second. Jaw and tooth fragments let us know what was going on with the cranium between ealiear species and H. erectus. Smaller teeth and smaller jaws correlates with a larger brain case. That is what these teeth and jaw fragments tell us, that brains were getting bigger between pre-H. erectus and H. erectus. This is important information.

How does one determine what a fossil means without interpretation? What you need to show is that the interpretation is unscientific or wrong.

Hi davids-evolution, and welcome to the fray. Are you suggesting that because there is some uncertainty in one area, especially one where new information has been found, that this throws the whole issue of transitional fossils into disarray? Curiously, I don't see your article affecting this issue at all. Perhaps you can explain more. Amusingly, scientists do a lot more than just make lists of differences: if all we had were differences then there would be no tree of life. What is involved is small differences between highly similar organisms, where the similarities show the heredity, and the differences show the evolution.Similar to what we see in life around us today. LOL. This thread is about PRATTs and here we have two more.
CA221: Were you there?
CA220: Evolution replicableThe fundamental problem is that the fossil evidence exists, and thus any attempt to explain the history of life on this planet must explain all this evidence or it is incomplete (at best) or false (at worst).Evolution is one explanation. Every new fossil is a test for the concept that evolution can explain the total known diversity of life. Sadly, for you anyway, this has nothing to do with how evolution and biology actually work. Evolution does not occur in individuals, but in populations. In any event this is not how transitional organisms occur. You are transitional, because you are between your ancestors and your descendants, and you have inherited some traits from your ancestors and some are new from new mutations. Your descendants will\have inherited some traits from you, some from your mate, and some will be acquired from new mutations. Amazingly, it appears you know less about dating methodology and the science behind it than you do about evolution. The good news is that you can learn (I hope) what the science involved is: ignorance is curable by education.If you want to discuss dating methodologies, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.This thread is about transitional fossils, what they are, and how they actually demonstrate transtions from one form to another through generations of organisms.See Message 3 for examples of transitional fossils.If you want to discuss your incredulity about evolution in general, then I suggest you start a new thread.In the mean time, please consider that not one of your posts on this thread has demonstrated that no transitional fossils occur, or that transitional fossils are not possible, or that you have an alternative explanation that covers all the known facts, evidence, fossils. Thanks, it's always nice to learn new information about the history of life.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : last comment.

---

I appreciate your mentioning the starting point for paleontology is another field. It is, as you know, based on more than its own study. That's fine if that's the Ace, let's call it an Ace (in most circumstances with a perceived stronger warrant coming alongside to prop up neo-Darwinian paleontology itself).The genetic link to chimps from humans is something I would question. Obviously they share similar segmets of DNA (Francis Collins argues for 100% gene sequence that codes for protein similarity with chimpanzees, and 98% for random DNA segments between genes). We are talking about transitional fossils, but since you mentioned this starting point in DNA, I'll offer an understanding. Similarity does not equate common ancestry. That is an assumption brought to the table beforehand. Whether in fossils (this thread) or in genetics (presumably there is another thread on this). To circularly use the same assumption smuggled in with genetics, to prove the transitional fossils between all species idea is interesting. I think circular argument is ok, as long as you're honest about it. Genetics is also using the same logic on populations, one from similarity. The switch between one animal and another is a real question. Some small level changes seem to occur in birds with their beaks. It is another thing to say a bird family became something far less like a bird. The "how you get there" is where the story telling pops into the picture. Humans also have large segments of their DNA in common with the dog and a significant minority of it with a mouse. Does this prove genetically that we are from a common ancestor? Saying it does only begs the question, a logical fallacy if it is used as an explanation. We still have no repeatable evidence to match a hypothesis of a bird changing into another animal, for example, even if we look at it genetically. While this kind of evidence may be hard to come by, it is still needed. The danger of the evolution as common ancestor explanation for all things (or most) is it assumes a lot we can't prove. Stories of a fish becoming another kind of fish are not going to be impressive to me. I would like to see something more than longer fins, longer or shorter beaks on a bird, or a curly haired dog versus a straight haired and faster dog. Breeding is something we can observe and repeat as an experiment to verify a local hypothesis. To extrapolate that out over a change from one genus or species of animal to another is completely different. It requires more assumptions being brought in (whether in the form of fossils transitioning or genetics transitioning). What I'm asking for essentially is humility of interpretation. Claiming that evolution as a mechanism in genetics or paleontology results is the true answer smacks of claiming to know more than one can seriously offer as a 'scientist.' Though if we are to tell nice stories based in circularity, then I grant perhaps there is some plausibity to the idea you have offered. Scientists come up with hypothesis to test them, rather than to just describe similarity between animals. A good science experiment would be to show fundamental change in genetics occuring that doesn't kill off the animal it is happening in, as it becomes a significantly different animal. Genetic information should be expected to be largely similar if organs and methods of mating are similar. This doesn't show that they were the same animal back in time.But the similarity is often overstated, as the DNA is (admittedly by genetic researchers) rearranged to fit alongside a segment in another different animal. That way the segments that would not be side by side now look more similar than they truly are at a genetic level naturally. This rearrangement as well has to be taken into effect in the complexity of the differences.I'll give an example of a counter to the statement that in transitional fossils or genetics, similarity is proof of having been a common ancestor at a previous time. If I use the same computer language and similar segments of code to write two seperate programs, that doesn't mean that the second program was naturally selected out of the first. They weren't the same program at some time. It only shows that the designer of these programs used a similar language to do two seperate 'projects,' if you will. The only way to say they were once the same program is to start with the materialist assumption that they had to be to fit with an assumption grid brought to the table (ie that the best explanation must be common ancestory whenever we see similarity).Edited by davids-evolution, : spelling

Hi davids-evolution, your new here, so you get some leeway to learn. While interesting comments, sadly they have little to do with the topic of this thread -- that transitional fossils exist and that there is abundant evidence for them.On this forum threads have topics, and general discussion that does not focus on the topic interferes with discussion of the topic.We have other threads for IDologists and evolution deniers. This isn't one of them.Please start a new thread to continue, or discuss the topicGo to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Thank you.

---

No. You see, this is why you're not a "good skeptic". You think that the evidence is "boring".No, frankly, that's what makes this good skeptic think that you're a whackjob.

Dr. Colin Patterson, author of the book Evolution, said this about the lack of transitional fossils (which should give some of the pride "Dr Adequate" has a check, one always knows that an opponent has lost when all he can do is call me a 'whack job.' -- an ad hominem fallacy in argument):" I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"He also goes on to say that his belief in gradualism is due to genetics. So there is a close tie between transitional fossil 'interpretation' and the evidence, which says nothing, but awaits a theory from some source of intelligence to say 'what' happened.Sounds like Dr. Adequate is inAdequate in logical argumentation.Edited by davids-evolution, : grammar

Sounds good Razd, so long as people can't use the genetics card on their part, and then when I bring it up dismiss me as not able to bring it up (while they can bring it up). As long as it's even handed, I'll avoid doing anything more than just mentioning it. I'll stick more to the transitional fossil thread. Thank you for the clarification.

I just want to let you know what I think about a few comments, without replying to this whole post (that would be too much replying).
On the one hand, I would question what you mean by saying I'm a transitional animal. Sure I'm an animal, and I have traits that are a bit different gradually (in a small time frame) from my parents or other members of the population. However changes in a population start with individuals mating. Everyone admits that, and this isn't a large population (with humans, it takes two baby, it takes two.... (sorry for the song)). I doubt that as a transitional animal (which I admit) that I prove a change in species will ever occur in the human population. I will admit I'm skeptical that differences in the population lead us to be more evolved. I would suggest that lots of defects such as cancer are increasingly common in transitional animals.I think there is a far, far stronger interpretation than yours (which sounds like the Hegelian up up and away of fossils), which is transition fossils show devolving characteristics that take down species. Certainly the obesity problem in the US, European (especially UK), and some Asian countries that are advanced in testing scores (or chose some standard for the population) shows an example of downgrade in the transitional fossils living in the population today. There are all kinds of health problems observable in current transitional fossils that show a devolution. There is a great amount of disease and animal weakness in the fossil record (generally acknowledged). The conclusion I draw from this is evolution is like Joel Osteem optimism, but on a more scientific level. Whereas a more likely explanation would be a scientific negative view of where species are going.Edited by davids-evolution, : spell check

Hi again davids-evolution, and thanks for the replies on topic. Interestingly I did a google on Dr. Colin Patterson I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book and this was the first hit:Forbidden This is known as quote-mining, and it is dishonest. Curiously, if creationism were valid then dishonest quote-mines would not be necessary, as there would be evidence to use instead.Now that you know that the site that you garnered this misinformation from was providing you with false information, I trust that you will no longer use it as a source of information.It is also patently absurd that any quote would prove that there are no transitional fossils, when the examples given in Message 3 in fact show transitional fossils. We know for a fact that some transitional fossils do exist in the fossil record, fossils that come between ancestors and descendants in time and that show intermediate traits between ancestors and descendants (note that "intermediate" is a better word than "transitional" and that "transitional" is only used because of past use). Curiously, the fact that you doubt that humans will speciate, in specific, or that any population will speciate in general, after undergoing evolution (through one or more intermediate forms) is totally irrelevant to the issue of being intermediate in time and intermediate in traits between ancestor and descendant populations. You are, de facto a transitional animal. Fascinatingly, you are entirely welcome to your opinion, however opinion in general is completely incapable of altering reality, all it can do is reflect reality, ignorance (not knowing) of reality, or denial of reality, and the only way to tell is by comparing it to reality.Science is not based on the opinions of people, so even the opinions of Patterson, or Osteem, or any other scientist, is irrelevant to what science shows us about reality. Science tests concepts against the evidence of reality, such as the existence of transitional fossils, and discards concepts that are invalidated by the evidence.Enjoy.

---

Well, Razd I have been honest with you, but you have misunderstood why I quoted that (instead of reading in my motives, I will read them out). What's dishonest is putting words in your opponents mouth, Razd. I have found that a quote can be useful so as to give pause or reflect on the need to not be dogmatic about a position (such as yours). However, in this case you have --wrongly-- pigeon holed me as saying that because someone has been quoted once, that disproves evolution in transitional fossils in every case. I don't feel that any total case like that is being made. I offered this quote for thought, not as some total dismissal. Who is saying one or two or ten quotes can disprove something totally, that is a stronger claim than I'm making. I am simply saying there ought to be pause, rather than dogmatism about adopting a totalizing theory of neo-Darwinian evolution seen in transitional fossils.I am not arguing anything that strong as a total case. I am arguing that your totalizing faith in evolution as optimism that things are becoming more advanced needs some caution, as it is based on philosophy not strictly science. This is something you have missed, and thereby misrepresented your opponents intent.And you also mentioned I have argued a creationist line. I don't know that I have argued a creationist line with you either, though I have mentioned several options as alternative interpretations of the evidence (as any good scientist should be open to if they are truly 'neutral'). Just don't misrepresent what I've offered by way of critique of popular ideas of evolution.It is far to easy too see what you want though in an opponent. I also offered a de-evolution line which is essentially unrebutted. You may offer reasons for doubt of it, but there is no way to show that devolving trends are winning the day deductively. In fact, I came across today a major writer who outlined de-evolution as a position some have taken while reading some major naturalistic works put out by a mainline publisher.I suppose discussion can only happen if there are different viewpoints, and this site advertises itself for a place of discussion. This should mean that EVC wants to avoid ad hominem attacks on the opponent. Let's stick with the issues of how to see the evidence rather than merely saying an opponent is a whack job (as another poster did) or is dishonest (how do you know I meant to disprove all transitional fossils ever with a quote, I'm not sure that is what I was trying to do?). If I believe I am being honest in giving pause to my opponents, why would that be dishonest? If you are appealing to an objective standard of morality, where did that enter in? And if you appeal to community standards, why not follow Nietzsche instead and say the strongest wins?In passing, it is an interest I have in being on the forum in challenging interpretations, even deeply held ones, particularly in how fossils are viewed as transitioning. There is no de facto idea here. The reality is we all have the evidence, and your interpretation (opinion) Razd differs from mine at present at least. It is the story you (and others often) tell about what we're looking at that I disagree with on fossils being transitional in a way that shows evolution as advancing populations is true. It is not that there is evidence someone doesn't have. The evidence is boring until the story is told, and I reject the 'evolution as total or deductive' explanation storyline. I think a more likely one (opinion) is that things are devolving, which fits with death, cancer, disease, horrible pain, etc. This is reality, not optimistic advancing of the best species which seems to not match evidence in reality. And I might add, that by quoting another author which you have done, hopefully you as well, (not using a double standard) don't believe that -totally- disproves my case either for a devolving world of transitional fossil evidence.

So, yet again, a creationist full of "rhetoric" falls at the first hurdle, this time with such a blatently obvious, and much used by the creationista, quote-mine. Your credibility is now zero, so I guess it's time to quit with the "smart" talk and start helping us belive that you are not just another dishonest creationst, lying his way for Jesus. At the moment, we have two exemplary creationists at EvC - Slevesque and Flyer (plus other worthy, but perhaps not so critically minded members) - you would do well to learn from them...

Hi again, davids-evolution, thanks for the reply. So you are saying that putting up a quote that misrepresents a scientist's position is useful in making people reconsider the facts, when the facts before you (again, see Message 3) show that what you quoted is not the real truth. There are in fact transitional fossils.Transitional fossils are a fact of the fossil record, and it is not being dogmatic to point this out. Trying to obfuscate this fact is dishonest. Curiously, you have not shown any evidence that would make one pause, and it is evidence that science uses, not opinions in quotes. You could provide all the quotes in the world, and they will not change the fact that transitional fossils exist in the fossil record. You have used a misquote typical of creationist arguments, and you are full of inuendo that evolution is a false theory, but you are unable to provide evidence, just quotes, and ignored the fact that transitional fossils exist.If you don't want to be viewed as a creationist, then don't wear their clothes. What I want from fellow posters on this forum, regardless of opinion, faith, belief, education, political stripe, etc, is honesty.If you think you have an alternate explanation for the facts then start a new thread. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. If you think it is "essentially unrebutted" then this is a way to test it, a proper way on this forum, rather than hijack a thread that is on a different topic. The topic on this thread is that (a) transitional fossils exist in the fossil record, and (b) that they in fact show evolution - the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. So quit whining about getting slapped about misusing a quote, fess up that you made a mistake, to take someones words out of context, and that you didn't have the intellectual curiosity to look into the quote and validate it before posting, and start a new thread on your explanation. You will find a lot of honest response and careful evaluation. Start your new topic, and we will see.In the meantime, perhaps you should look at the evidence shown in Message 3, such as Pelycodus:

quote:

---

(2) Pelycodus:

​

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

quote:

---

​

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average. Then we can discuss whether or not they show forms intermediate between ancestor populations and descendant populations.

---

Conclusion

​

Clearly transitional fossils exist at the species level, fossils that clearly show the "tiny dawinian steps" from generation to generation.

---

Do you not agree?Enjoy.

---