7 Major "Missing Links" Since Darwin

[Mallon]

This just posted at National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/index.html

My list probably would have been a little different, but they're all cool fossils nonetheless.

 

[crishmael]

That's really interesting! I've been lurking here a while, and read some pretty good stuff, so I decided to drop a little "howdy" and a "that's kinda cool".

 

[shernren]

14 gaps, mallon! 14!

 

[MiserableSinner]

I guess they're not "missing" anymore.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Mallon, I always love your contributions.

 

[Mallon]

Glad to be of service.
This being Darwin Week, there's lots of good stuff to pick from.

 

[Polycarp1]

Really a nice article, summarizing great intermediate finds over 150+ years. There's been a lot of stuff brought forward in the last two decades regarding whale ancestry -- might even be worth its own thread.

 

[Mallon]

Really a nice article, summarizing great intermediate finds over 150+ years. There's been a lot of stuff brought forward in the last two decades regarding whale ancestry -- might even be worth its own thread.

Aye. Even some of the neocreationists around here are beginning to incorporate whale evolution from terrestrial ancestors into their models.

 

[Mallon]

Anyone got any favourite "missing links" that didn't make the list?

 

[gluadys]

Anyone got any favourite "missing links" that didn't make the list?

I suppose it is species-centrism that dictated all choices be vertebrates.

I would like to learn a lot more about invertebrate evolution. Any nice transitionals there?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Anyone got any favourite "missing links" that didn't make the list?

Well, I know you did a post about whales here recently, but I always like them. Also (and yes, this probably is species-centrism) but human evolution is fascinating.

 

[Chesterton]

Two thoughts:

1. I looked up "link" in the dictionary. The underlying idea of the word is a direct, tangible connection between two things. Does the word "link" really apply to these things, and how so?

2. Only a supposed seven found? With millions of existing species?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

1. I looked up "link" in the dictionary. The underlying idea of the word is a direct, tangible connection between two things. Does the word "link" really apply to these things, and how so?

Well, I am not a scientist, but keep in mind a few things. First, just because a word means something in everyday English (dictionary definition) doesn't mean that it has to mean the same thing in science. Jargon in a lot of different fields will differ from the dictionary definition. An example from my field (Old Testament Studies) is that we talk about the Hebrew Cult of YHWH. To people outside of the field this can sound terribly insulting (hence why I do not use that terminology on this forum). But inside the field it does not take on a negative definition. Cult, unlike in regular English, does not imply the occult, witchcraft, or demons, it simply means that they were worshiping at a centralised location (such as the Temple) with some degree of ritual (such as sacrifices).

But also (again, from my non-scientist mind) it seems that the dictionary definition of 'link' works in this case. There is a "direct, tangible connection". You have creature 'A' (the ancestral species) and you have creature 'C' (the descendant species) and creature 'B' is a "direct, tangible connection" between the two. It is a link.

2. Only a supposed seven found? With millions of existing species?

You are misunderstanding. These are seven that National Geographic (and Mallon) thought were interesting. There are many, many other species that are links.

 

[Mallon]

1. I looked up "link" in the dictionary. The underlying idea of the word is a direct, tangible connection between two things. Does the word "link" really apply to these things, and how so?

They are linked morphologically, sharing successive suites of characters. It's a colloquialism. Don't take it too literally.

2. Only a supposed seven found? With millions of existing species?

Who said "only" seven were found?

 

[Chesterton]

You are misunderstanding. These are seven that National Geographic (and Mallon) thought were interesting. There are many, many other species that are links.

Who said "only" seven were found?

If you consider how many animals that could be alive on earth right now, and try and imagine how many there have been over the course of hundreds of thousands, and millions of years (the figure would have to be in the trillions), doesn't it seem the earth should be lousy with many, many more types of "transitional" fossils?

 

[gluadys]

If you consider how many animals that could be alive on earth right now, and try and imagine how many there have been over the course of hundreds of thousands, and millions of years (the figure would have to be in the trillions), doesn't it seem the earth should be lousy with many, many more types of "transitional" fossils?

By the same token, if there was no evolution, isn't even one too many for a special creation scenario?

Especially one that falls between two 'baramins'?

The seven are only a sampling of the most interesting, not all that have been found. And several of them e.g. Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, do transcend proposed 'baramins' where that theory says NO transitional form should be found.

Remember the white swan/black swan scenario. It only takes one black swan to show that not all swans are white. And it only takes one transitional fossil to show that not all species (or baramins) were specially created.

It doesn't matter how many have not been found yet. Those that have been found are sufficient to disallow special creation.

 

[Mallon]

If you consider how many animals that could be alive on earth right now, and try and imagine how many there have been over the course of hundreds of thousands, and millions of years (the figure would have to be in the trillions), doesn't it seem the earth should be lousy with many, many more types of "transitional" fossils?

There are many, many transitional fossils. NG made a list of 7 of their favourites.

 

[Mallon]

Here are a few I would have added to the list:

Odontochelys (transitional turtle):

Gerobatrachus (half salamander/half frog -- all batrachian):

Probainognathus (half mammal/half reptile):

 

[Mallon]

I would like to learn a lot more about invertebrate evolution. Any nice transitionals there?

Admittedly, I don't know much about invertebrate evolution, because I don't study inverts. Here are some links I found, though:

http://darwinblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/transitional-species-in-insect_24.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm

 

[Mallon]

USincognito just brought this link to my attention:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina_pic.html

Thanks, USincognito.