Are there transitional fossils?

[Jimmy D]

But had not man accelerated the process, they would indeed have taken millions of years to produce just a few breeds and be separated in sequential layers by tens of millions of years.

Unsupported nonsense. I posted this example in another thread...

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genes that caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well once again you misrepresented what I was indicating. I never claimed "that tetrapods have been found in sediment dated to be earlier than fishapods and tiktaalik" the footprints of the land walking tetrapod found in Poland are not a tetrapod found in sediment.

The picture on top is an imaginary artistic contrivance but the footprints are the real deal https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html

I've just had a read of a few papers on these footprints.

Firstly, there might be a bit of controversy about whether they actually are footprints but I think they're generally accepted as such.

original paper

Secondly, This is much ado about nothing, Tiktaalik represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose. (link)

This article explains it better than I would.....

What has changed is that the branches of the tree go back deeper in time, and rather than a sharp changeover, there was a more prolonged period of history in which, clearly, fish, fishapods, and tetrapods coexisted, which isn't surprising at all. Tetrapod evolution was spread out over a longer period of time than was previously thought, but this is simply a quantitative shift, not a qualitative change in our understanding of the relationships of these animals.

 

[pshun2404]

It's a childish response to an actual question, since I'm sure you realize that prehistoric footprints found in rocks are called fossils too, right. Now I answered your question, so you answer mine: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

And?

since I'm sure you realize that prehistoric footprints found in rocks are called fossils too, right.

I would hope so since I called them that many times...so not childish, but you seem a bit confused and unable to actually read my words again.

Now I answered your question, so you answer mine: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

No you did not answer my only one question which was...can something supposed to be a descendant, i.e., tetrapods, already be in existence before the alleged transitional that led to it?

Now read and answer....it is a yes/no option....very simple and rephrased several times.

Finally...NO there have been no such fossils as far as I know of "found in the last four or five years" (not that that matters one bit)...but what I have shown you is that Tetrapod fossils "have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik"!

 

[pshun2404]

I've just had a read of a few papers on these footprints.
This article explains it better than I would.....

What has changed is that the branches of the tree go back deeper in time, and rather than a sharp changeover, there was a more prolonged period of history in which, clearly, fish, fishapods, and tetrapods coexisted, which isn't surprising at all. Tetrapod evolution was spread out over a longer period of time than was previously thought, but this is simply a quantitative shift, not a qualitative change in our understanding of the relationships of these animals.

Right you are Jim...this MAY BE a way around the problem! And MAY BE exactly why they appear to be older (because they are)! Now yes this COULD MEAN that a transition just took place earlier, but that proves Tik is not a transitional fossil (some earlier fossil before the footprints that we have not found may be evidence of this person's hypothesis, but not "Tik" because Tik came after)....

Hell, if we find a complete tetrapod from this earlier time it could indicate (or be INTERPRETED as) Tik types evolved from them...(that would be equally plausible)

 

[doubtingmerle]

Right you are Jim...this MAY BE a way around the problem! And MAY BE exactly why they appear to be older (because they are)! Now yes this COULD MEAN that a transition just took place earlier, but that proves Tik is not a transitional fossil (some earlier fossil before the footprints that we have not found may be evidence of this person's hypothesis, but not "Tik" because Tik came after)....

Hell, if we find a complete tetrapod from this earlier time it could indicate (or be INTERPRETED as) Tik types evolved from them...(that would be equally plausible)

You seem to misunderstand what we mean by "transitional". When we find many Hyracotherium fossils spread throughout the earth, for instance, and we say this is a transitional to modern horses, we are not saying that every single one of those Hyracortherium fossils we find is a direct ancestor of the horse. Rather, they are all cousins of the true ancestor. We will probably never find the true ancestor, and wouldn't know it if we saw it. Hyracotherium was a genus, and most likely consisted of many different species in different places and times. One of those subspecies happened to be the ancestor of the Orohippus genus, and one of the subspecies of Orohippus happened to be the ancestor of the Epihippus genus, and so on up through to the Mesohippus, Merychippus, and modern Equus genera to the zebra of which we have discussed often in this thread. So of the many members and probably many species we have found in the Hyracotherium genus, most likely all such fossil we find are not a direct ancestor to the modern horse and zebra. But that does not matter. The one species or sub species of Hyracotherium that was lucky enough to lead to the further horse series probably looked very much like all the other Hyracotherium fossils we find. So we point to the Hyracotherium as an ancestor, even though most of the fossils we find are actually cousins of the true ancestor.

Hyracotherium was an extremely successful genus, lasting over 20 million years. We don't know when a subspecies group broke off to become the Orohippus and millions of years later, the horse and zebra, but the Hyracotherium continued to exist, looking very much like the specific Hyracotherium that was the ancestor of the later zebra. So yes, when we find a Hyracotherium that is 40 million years old, it might be every bit representative of the ancestor of the Orohippus that is 50 million years old. So how can we say that a Hyracotherium that is 40 million years old represents an ancestor of the 50 million year old Orohippus? Because as far as fossils are concerned, all the cousin Hyracotherium we find are representative of the genus, and this help us to understand the one lucky subspecies of Hyracotherium that is the true ancestor. So we refer to the whole group of Hyracotherium as a transitional.

When an animal evolves, the ancestors often survive for a long time. So we have humans, but we still have monkeys. We have humans, but we still have reptiles. We have humans, but we still have fish. Many animals very similar to those intermediates still exist.

OK, back to the footprints found before Tic. There are several possibilities here. One is that the "footprints" are misunderstood or misdated. Let's assume the footprints 18 million years before the earliest known Tic are confirmed authentic. As the link that Jimmy D posted explained, all this would do is push back the date of the common ancestor of the Tic and the animal that made those footprints. So even if the animal that made these footprints was better adapted to terrestrial life than Tic, Tic could have remained for millions of years in the marshes, just like Hyracotherium remained after Orohippus evolved, and apes remained after humans evolved. And the Tic fossils still in the wetlands may be representative of the small group that first invaded the land million of years earlier, even though others had already moved inland by the time those fossils were made. None of that defeats evolution. Tic fossils from 20 million years after the invasion of the land can help us understand those that first invaded the land.

In closing, let me say that I have honored you with complete paragraphs. Usually when I write here I need to keep the paragraphs short because many have a short attention span and quickly start skimming. If a person is not going to read the whole paragraph, then I am wasting my time writing it. So I usually confine my writings to short statements and questions, in hopes that something will get through. Here however, I am honored to express a concept that is more complex, and that requires actual paragraphs. I am taking the chance that you will not let me down, but that you are one that actually reads and responds to complex paragraphs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Me also! These are early varieties of what we now call "horse".... I am not making the claim that a designer produced the first few varieties. From horse kind to horse kind just like Darwin's finches eventually came from earlier varieties of avians (not from reptiles).

Which seems a little garbled to me: "I am not making the claim that a designer produced the first few varieties." You are not? Ok, so how did the first few varieties come into existence? Did they all evolve from the earliest microbe which assembled itself in the primal goo?

You say the many fossils in the horse series from Hyracotherium are varieties of the horse. OK, which of the following do you agree with:

1. The first animals in the horse series, Hyracotherium, lived over 50 million years ago.
2. The horse and zebra evolved over millions of years from an animal like the Hyracotherium.
3. The Hyracotherium evolved from the earliest placental mammal, which evolved from the mammal-like reptiles, which evolved from early reptiles.

 

[xianghua]

I have been asking over and over what creationists here offer as the alternative to evolution and they refuse--refuse!--to answer

realy? i said for instance that a speciel creation or even a theistic evolution are the only possible explanations. but not a natural evolution that you believe in. we can check this claim and i can show you why if you want.

 

[xianghua]

You are responding to my statement that, even if you could prove design, that would not prove evolution false.

you said that:

"So even if you prove the zebra was designed--but you haven't--you will not have proven that the DNA did not evolve"

true. but you said that i doesnt prove design yet. so the real question here is a natural evolution vs any kind of creation (theistic evolution or a speciel creation). do you agree? if so lets check those options.

 

[Speedwell]

realy? i said for instance that a speciel creation or even a theistic evolution are the only possible explanations. but not a natural evolution that you believe in. we can check this claim and i can show you why if you want.

You can't just say "special creation" and be done. How did it work? What did it look like while it was happening? What particular species were created? Theistic evolution, on the other hand, is an falsifiable proposition. Under theistic evolution, life will appear to have evolved naturally with no detectable intervention by a "designer.".

 

[xianghua]

You are missing the point. The fact that the animal that made the Zachelmie footprints didn't evolve from Tiktaalik doesn't change the fact that it must have had Early Palaeozoic ancestors that were not tetrapods.

according to this even an ape fossil with a dino isnt an "out of order fossil". this is what you want to argue?

The evidence is that the Lower or Middle Devonian tetrapod that made the
Zachelmie footprints must have had a chain of ancestors extending back into Silurian time

first; do you have any fossils of those suppose ancestors?

 

[xianghua]

People don't usually like the idea of stacking the deck because it is a form of cheating so I call it "Shrinking the Box". This is an often used propaganda technique, and it is happening in discussions with and among many Evolutionists (not all).

This happens among an in-Group/out-Group psychology is an attempt for one group to exercise power over or maintain power amidst the presence of another. In these discussions this usually is default strategy used when one appears to disagree with the status quo “accepted view” insisted upon by the power pedagogues in that group or field.

Suddenly views or interpretations of others MUST BE dismissed or re-explained though the rose colored glasses of the modern consensus view (which historically in science has proved to ever be replaced, modified, or expressed differently over time, even if that means re-defining previously commonly accepted terms).

Shrinking the box happens whereby one is consistently placing particular parameters onto the discussion by which one can slowly but surely (if the other falls for it) position the discussion so that the only opinions accepted are of those which support only the box shrinker’s view....

In discussions about controversies in Evolution it goes like this...

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones" (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 years unless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two).

But who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back much further insisting on alleged relevance.

Then next, any scientific insights except from specific fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting even smaller, one is told to only appeal to articles written in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications (even peer reviewed but from different or related fields), which in some cases might be fine, but...then they narrow it to only in peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who shrinks the box. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

This discussion/debate strategy is based in prejudice, and does not allow freedom of thought, honest doubt, or reasonable questions which may rock the proverbial boat. Alternative possibilities or varying explanations of the same evidence simply will not be allowed. In effect “shrinking the box” not only closes the mind which hinders intellectual integrity, but it manipulates the discussion and debate.

there are more evidences of a tetrapods in that geological time:

The biostratigraphical and palaeogeographical framework of the earliest diversification of tetrapods (Late Devonian)

Rise of the Earliest Tetrapods: An Early Devonian Origin from Marine Environment

"The results have shown that tetrapods evolved from marine environments during times of higher oxygen levels. The change in environmental conditions played a major role in their evolution. According to our analysis this evolution occurred at about 397–416 MYA during the Early Devonian unlike previously thought. This idea is supported by various environmental factors such as sea levels and oxygen rate, and biotic factors such as biodiversity of arthropods and coral reefs. "

 

[Jimmy D]

Right you are Jim...this MAY BE a way around the problem! And MAY BE exactly why they appear to be older (because they are)! Now yes this COULD MEAN that a transition just took place earlier, but that proves Tik is not a transitional fossil (some earlier fossil before the footprints that we have not found may be evidence of this person's hypothesis, but not "Tik" because Tik came after)....

Hell, if we find a complete tetrapod from this earlier time it could indicate (or be INTERPRETED as) Tik types evolved from them...(that would be equally plausible)

It does not prove Tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil, unless you're using a definition of transitional fossil that the rest of us are unaware of.

A transitional fossil need not represent a specific evolutionary lineage, it needs to show "characteristics of both ancestral and derived forms."

 

[xianghua]

Also go look at every evolutionary tree and you will notice the original ancestor where the splits occurr, do not exist in any of the lines. They are one and all non existent. They are so sure it happened they imagine common ancestors in every line even though none exist in any of them.

yep. i have noticed that too. by the way: we have other evidences of tetrapods from this period. apart from this they also made a laser scan and found a match to acanthostega limb:


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ays_from_the_Middle_Devonian_Period_of_Poland


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ays_from_the_Middle_Devonian_Period_of_Poland

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But I'm right. Species DOES come below Genus.
T

And there exists but one species and the rest are infraspecific taxa. This is a correct interpretation since it actually matches the observable world around us.

Now all they need do is go fix all the other incorrect classifications where they listed those infraspecific taxa in other genus as seperate species.

But that will never happen because your gaps would become insurmountable chasms.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have yet to show how your percieved problems regarding the classification of species present a problem for the Theory of Evolution, until then, please kindly stop endlessly repeating yourself.

I've said it several times you just keep ignoring it.

If we classify the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, we come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. We start to believe that the Husky and Mastiff are intermediary species leading to the Chinook species.

All based upon simple incorrect classifications.

Are you saying if we incorrectly classify the Husky and Mastiff as separate species we won't come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook or the Husky and Mastiff?

But that's why you consistently ignored it, you know the wrong conclusions would be reached.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unsupported nonsense. I posted this example in another thread...

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genes that caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.

Hmm lets see, you claim dogs interfered with by man don't count, then claim birds interfered with by man is natural selection. Even if mans interference has led to changes in characteristics in both species.

With that logic I can see why you would be confused.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And there exists but one species and the rest are infraspecific taxa. This is a correct interpretation since it actually matches the observable world around us.

Now all they need do is go fix all the other incorrect classifications where they listed those infraspecific taxa in other genus as seperate species.

But that will never happen because your gaps would become insurmountable chasms.

So why don't you go and fix then instead of just slumming around anonymously on the internet? You'd be a hero in the scientific community!
Or are you really just blustering and posturing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

since I'm sure you realize that prehistoric footprints found in rocks are called fossils too, right.

I would hope so since I called them that many times...so not childish, but you seem a bit confused and unable to actually read my words again.

Now I answered your question, so you answer mine: do you have anything from the last four or five years that supports your claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik?

No you did not answer my only one question which was...can something supposed to be a descendant, i.e., tetrapods, already be in existence before the alleged transitional that led to it?

Now read and answer....it is a yes/no option....very simple and rephrased several times.

Finally...NO there have been no such fossils as far as I know of "found in the last four or five years" (not that that matters one bit)...but what I have shown you is that Tetrapod fossils "have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the tiktaalik"!

I DID answer your question, in post #935: No, it can't, but what you gave does not definitely point to an actual tetrapod. All you gave were tracks, which aren't fully definitive proof.

And you haven't shown me tetrapod fossils. You have shown me SUPPOSED tetrapod fossils. Supposed DOES NOT MEAN that it is a tetrapod fossil.

 

[pshun2404]

You seem to misunderstand what we mean by "transitional". When we find many Hyracotherium fossils spread throughout the earth, for instance, and we say this is a transitional to modern horses, we are not saying that every single one of those Hyracortherium fossils we find is a direct ancestor of the horse. Rather, they are all cousins of the true ancestor. We will probably never find the true ancestor, and wouldn't know it if we saw it. Hyracotherium was a genus, and most likely consisted of many different species in different places and times. One of those subspecies happened to be the ancestor of the Orohippus genus, and one of the subspecies of Orohippus happened to be the ancestor of the Epihippus genus, and so on up through to the Mesohippus, Merychippus, and modern Equus genera to the zebra of which we have discussed often in this thread. So of the many members and probably many species we have found in the Hyracotherium genus, most likely all such fossil we find are not a direct ancestor to the modern horse and zebra. But that does not matter. The one species or sub species of Hyracotherium that was lucky enough to lead to the further horse series probably looked very much like all the other Hyracotherium fossils we find. So we point to the Hyracotherium as an ancestor, even though most of the fossils we find are actually cousins of the true ancestor.

Hyracotherium was an extremely successful genus, lasting over 20 million years. We don't know when a subspecies group broke off to become the Orohippus and millions of years later, the horse and zebra, but the Hyracotherium continued to exist, looking very much like the specific Hyracotherium that was the ancestor of the later zebra. So yes, when we find a Hyracotherium that is 40 million years old, it might be every bit representative of the ancestor of the Orohippus that is 50 million years old. So how can we say that a Hyracotherium that is 40 million years old represents an ancestor of the 50 million year old Orohippus? Because as far as fossils are concerned, all the cousin Hyracotherium we find are representative of the genus, and this help us to understand the one lucky subspecies of Hyracotherium that is the true ancestor. So we refer to the whole group of Hyracotherium as a transitional.

When an animal evolves, the ancestors often survive for a long time. So we have humans, but we still have monkeys. We have humans, but we still have reptiles. We have humans, but we still have fish. Many animals very similar to those intermediates still exist.

OK, back to the footprints found before Tic. There are several possibilities here. One is that the "footprints" are misunderstood or misdated. Let's assume the footprints 18 million years before the earliest known Tic are confirmed authentic. As the link that Jimmy D posted explained, all this would do is push back the date of the common ancestor of the Tic and the animal that made those footprints. So even if the animal that made these footprints was better adapted to terrestrial life than Tic, Tic could have remained for millions of years in the marshes, just like Hyracotherium remained after Orohippus evolved, and apes remained after humans evolved. And the Tic fossils still in the wetlands may be representative of the small group that first invaded the land million of years earlier, even though others had already moved inland by the time those fossils were made. None of that defeats evolution. Tic fossils from 20 million years after the invasion of the land can help us understand those that first invaded the land.

In closing, let me say that I have honored you with complete paragraphs. Usually when I write here I need to keep the paragraphs short because many have a short attention span and quickly start skimming. If a person is not going to read the whole paragraph, then I am wasting my time writing it. So I usually confine my writings to short statements and questions, in hopes that something will get through. Here however, I am honored to express a concept that is more complex, and that requires actual paragraphs. I am taking the chance that you will not let me down, but that you are one that actually reads and responds to complex paragraphs.

I understand EXACTLY what transitional means and always meant. If you need to change the meaning to appear correct I am not surprised since this is what propaganda campaigns must do.

"Rather, they are all cousins of the true ancestor. We will probably never find the true ancestor, and wouldn't know it if we saw it.

Fear not, it does not exist!

"One of those subspecies happened to be the ancestor of the Orohippus genus, and one of the subspecies of Orohippus happened to be the ancestor of the Epihippus genus, and so on up through to the Mesohippus, Merychippus, and modern Equus genera to the zebra of which we have discussed often in this thread."

That IS the way your like-minded intelligences have designed the system of categorization which may or may not actually be true.

"Many animals very similar to those intermediates still exist".

Many creatures exhibit similarity that's because these forms and functions were a good idea. Anatomical and physiological similarity does NOT necessitate a lineal relationship (that part is the narrative assigned based on the already accepted hypothesis).

And I am honored thanks and I did and do read entire posts unlike some...but notice this language...what WE mean...we believe that...probably never find the true...we don't know...looks like...most likely...can't you see how that is not the language of fact (even though you probably accept it as fact), that it is a way of viewing the data?

I hope you can...by definition of the term transitional as was always used by Evolutionary Biologists as well as any one who was educated that could read, in light of this new evidence "Tik" is NOT a transitional form between fish and tetrapods...

 

[pshun2404]

I DID answer your question, in post #935: No, it can't, but what you gave does not definitely point to an actual tetrapod. All you gave were tracks, which aren't fully definitive proof.

And you haven't shown me tetrapod fossils. You have shown me SUPPOSED tetrapod fossils. Supposed DOES NOT MEAN that it is a tetrapod fossil.

So all impression based fossils should be re-classified as "Supposed" fossils, right? And yes I agree "supposed" or "we believe that" or "joe expert said" does not equal IS...I agree...but it is you who said "Supposed" not the scientists who found these or those who researched them.

I do not know if you know, but some had toe impressions as well...thus they were definitely foot tracks, and are scientists on your side could tell from the gait that the creature was a four footed creature (hence Tetra-pod).