Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing Link
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 80 (96752)
04-01-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:44 PM


If every specie that ever existed was successful, why did they even evolve?
1. "Success" is not perfection. There are always ways in which an organism can become better adapted to its environment.
2. The environment changes. What is successful today may not be so successful tomorrow. New environmental niches open up, and populations evolve to fill them. And so on.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:44 PM Mnenth has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 17 of 80 (96756)
04-01-2004 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:41 PM


Let me reitterate what i have been saying, because i dont think you fully understand my question.
We understand what you are saying. The problem is that you have no understanding of evolution. Reiteraing your erors wil not make them correct.
The RATIO of fossils found should be far more half and half creatures (or partially evolved), then complete species
There is no such thing (and there never has been) as a half and half credature. There is no such thing (and there never has been) as a partially evolved species. All species are complete species. All species are transitional species. All fossils are successful complete species because that's all there is and all there ever has been.
A transitional fossil is an example of a successful complete species that has some characteristics of at least two other species. And we've got plenty of those, especially in the human lineage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:41 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-01-2004 9:29 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 21 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 9:46 PM JonF has not replied

Drahzar
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 80 (96757)
04-01-2004 8:23 PM


quote:
if every specie that ever existed was successful, why did they even evolve? they would have no need to, because they were succssesful.
Successful doesn't mean perfect, it just means the species survived long enough to reproduce. So a species will keep evolving. Other factors can affect evolution too, such as changing climates.
We don't have more transitional fossils because the chances of a dead animal becoming a fossil is tiny. So many factors have to come together perfectly for a fossil to form. Add to that the fact that we have only excavated a tiny percent of the world, and that we'll only ever be able to excavate a tiny percent of the world, and you get your answer as to why we haven't found more.

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 80 (96759)
04-01-2004 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:44 PM


if every specie that ever existed was successful, why did they even evolve? they would have no need to, because they were succssesful.
Critters (and plants....) are successful enough to survive in the environment to which they are adapted. Toy poodles, for example, thrive if kept in the houses of blue-haired old ladies and fed canned dog food, but don't do as well running with coyotes through the mesquite out here in the desert. The same goes in nature: brown rabbits will get eaten quicker than white ones in an area that gets snowier over time. If the climate change is gradual enough for rabbit variation to keep up, the white rabbits will eventually outbreed the browns and take over. Their southern cousins, though, in unsnowy areas, will be at more of an advantage being brown.
If separate breeding populations arise for the two, you end up with different species - I know they're still rabbits - like we see with snowshoe hares and other American bunnies. But there is absolutely no mechanism in nature to keep this process from continuing, with changes in other that coat color, until, say, one of the descendant species of one of these initial groups looks like a capybara - they're rodents, too.
And you might note that most - some say over 99% - of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Yeah, they were all successful for a while, but then something changed. You can't just consider a successful organism all by itself: it must be considered in its environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:44 PM Mnenth has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 80 (96773)
04-01-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
04-01-2004 8:19 PM


a bit of a nit pic
A transitional fossil is an example of a successful complete species that has some characteristics of at least two other species.
I think that usually, we are looking at species that have characteristics of two modern, higer taxa. The very funny part is that literalists are looking for transitionals between rather high taxa (like reptile and mammel) which are easier to find than they might be between genera (certainly in the fossil record).
They never, ever seem to get the point about modern taxa and what it implies though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 8:19 PM JonF has not replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 80 (96781)
04-01-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
04-01-2004 8:19 PM


Quote:There is no such thing (and there never has been) as a half and half credature
You KNOW what I mean. Stop being nit picky about my word choice and look at what i am trying to say. I admit that i was wrong about the succsessful specie thing, but the fact remains: that there is a huge gap in the fossil evidence connecting species. All you have are a handfull of debateable examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 8:19 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2004 9:50 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 31 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 10:25 PM Mnenth has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 80 (96785)
04-01-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 9:46 PM


You KNOW what I mean.
Nope. We can't KNOW that. Read some of Whatever's stuff around here, and see if you know what HE means.
Oh, and I just posted this in the last day or two, maybe even here: the book Gaining Ground by Jennifer Clack will show you a bunch of obvious transitionals. So will a Googling of "Thewissen" and "whale" to Dr Th's multi-page whale evolution site.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 9:46 PM Mnenth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 80 (96787)
04-01-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:05 PM


my father didnt evolve into me.
No, but he did give rise to you.
Perhaps you don't understand that evolution happens to populations, not to individuals. You're born with all the adaptations you'll ever have; whether or not those adaptations persist in the populations is a function of natural selection.
Evolution isn't a process where creatures morph from one to another, like on TV. It's a process that changes the ratio of one gene to another in a population's gene pool.
What I'm saying is, that there should be so many more fossils found that are undeniable one specie evolving into another.
What we're telling you is that you don't know how to recognize such a fossil. It's not a half-and-half chimera of indeterminate species. It's a well-formed example of it's own species. Transitional species are still species.
And that would be represented in the fossils we find. But it isnt. Why?
It is, though. Every species that wasn't a dead-end is a transitional species. You're the transitional between your father and your son. If you don't understand how you can be a transitional and still a human, then you need to hit the books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2004 9:57 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 24 of 80 (96788)
04-01-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 9:55 PM


If you don't understand how you can be a transitional and still a human, then you need to hit the books.
Or go out on more dates......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 9:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 80 (96789)
04-01-2004 9:57 PM


quote:If separate breeding populations arise for the two, you end up with different species - I know they're still rabbits - like we see with snowshoe hares and other American bunnies. But there is absolutely no mechanism in nature to keep this process from continuing, with changes in other that coat color, until, say, one of the descendant species of one of these initial groups looks like a capybara - they're rodents, too.
First thing here, yes coat color can change. That is manipulation of existing genetic material. To COMPLETELY change to another specie i.e. would require that entirely new genetic material be added, which your body can't create. Even when genetic material is combined, through fertilization, you only can get different combinations of the parents genes, not entirely new genetic information. It just isnt possible for an animal to get the genetic information to say, grow legs. It just isnt there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:01 PM Mnenth has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 80 (96792)
04-01-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 9:57 PM


To COMPLETELY change to another specie i.e. would require that entirely new genetic material be added, which your body can't create.
How do you come to that conclusion? Given that the shapes of bodies appear to be controlled by relatively few genes, why do you think we would need new ones?
And of course you're wrong about the new genetic material. There's a number of processes by which new genetic material is added to chromosomes, and they're all random. It's called "mutation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 9:57 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 80 (96798)
04-01-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 9:55 PM


quote:It's not a half-and-half chimera of indeterminate species. It's a well-formed example of it's own species. Transitional species are still species
i realize that. im just not explaining myself right. im not using the proper terminology. Let me correct myself. A transitional specie between two species would have physical characteristics of both species. And there would be hundreds, if not thousands of transitional species (each having varying amounts of each of the "parent" species characteristics) in the process of one specie evolving into another far down the road (for example dinosaurs and birds). If dinosaurs DID evolve into birds, there should be more archeopterix like creatures found. I dont mean that they need to find them all. Or even most But at least some. They find one, and call it good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 9:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2004 10:23 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:24 PM Mnenth has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 80 (96802)
04-01-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 10:01 PM


crashfrog, in mutation, the genetic material is slightly changed. It is slightly different, but still basically the same. And of course we would need new genes to add any new body part. Adding things like body parts, or getting rid of body parts requires a great deal of genetic information. MOre than what mutation allows for. Even if it did, it would take a great deal of time, and the limb would slowly get smaller, and smaller, then finally dissapear. Then that would create your "chimera", which you so vehemotly are against. So you are arguing against yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:30 PM Mnenth has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 80 (96804)
04-01-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:15 PM


They find one, and call it good.
I can think of at least five critters from China alone that are inbetweens for dinosaurs and birds - feathered dinos, toothed birds with bony long tails ... all found in the last decade or so. Paleo people don't "call it good" because of a fossil found in 1860 in Germany. They want to know more. Finding out more is what they do for a living.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:15 PM Mnenth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 80 (96805)
04-01-2004 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:15 PM


A transitional specie between two species would have physical characteristics of both species.
Sure. For instance, amphibians have characteristics of both fish and reptiles. Hippopotami have characteristics of both cetaceans and land mammals. So I know what you're talking about.
And there would be hundreds, if not thousands of transitional species (each having varying amounts of each of the "parent" species characteristics) in the process of one specie evolving into another far down the road
And there is. For instance, every species currently experiencing natural selection is a transitional species, because their eventual decendants will be better adapted to their environments. The current populations are the transition between the past population and the future population.
They find one, and call it good.
They hardly "call it good." The evolutionary lineage that links dinosaurs and birds is a hotly contested area of paleontology, because the fossil record is so sketchy in that area. But any student can look at bird skeletons and dinosaur skeletons and see that birds are the probable decendants of dinosaurs, so the fact of the decent isn't in question, just the specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:15 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024