Are there transitional fossils?

[HenryM]

You're right that mutations are random but evolution is not.

Can you have it both ways? If mutations are random, then process is random. What you call "evolution" is not end state, it's a process. Process cannot be random and not random at the same time. It's one of the two. If it is random, then you have orders (upon orders) of magnitude more failed tests, and however you choose to explain their distinction, there should be evidence of it.

 

[sfs]

Process cannot be random and not random at the same time. It's one of the two. If it is random, then you have orders (upon orders) of magnitude more failed tests, and however you choose to explain their distinction, there should be evidence of it.

What would the evidence look like? Severely deleterious mutations are embryonic lethal -- they never produce a viable organism to fossilize. Most mutations that are relevant to evolution cause small changes to existing traits. Some of those changes are beneficial, while most aren't. But none of them will look dramatically different when you dig up the skeleton later.

For example, in humans, in some places taller stature has been favored by natural selection, while in other places shorter stature has been favored. We can see the genetic results of natural selection -- how some mutations have increased in frequency in some places. But if you look at human remains from those places, all you'll see is a mix of taller and shorter people; the only way you'll be able to tell which was favored is by looking for long-term trends.

 

[Larniavc]

Can you have it both ways? If mutations are random, then process is random. What you call "evolution" is not end state, it's a process. Process cannot be random and not random at the same time. It's one of the two. If it is random, then you have orders (upon orders) of magnitude more failed tests, and however you choose to explain their distinction, there should be evidence of it.

Mutation is a random aspect of ToE. It is not the totality of ToE.

The take a blunt example mutations that kill the the organism in the womb or egg will never fossilise.

So from the get go a huge swathe of organisms with lethal random mutations never even open their eyes to see the sun, let alone fossilise.

Consequently the PROCESS of evolution (as you correctly point it out) is no longer random as only a subset of organisms get to survive to see the sun.

That's a selection process acting on (what you correctly point out) random mutations.

Mutations are random: you are absolutely correct.

But the process of evolution includes a selection process (the environment) that removes the randomness and gives it direction.

You're asking some important questions and it's really challenging me to think through my position. That's an important thing for someone to do so I'm greatful you're taking the time to have this discussion.

All the best.

 

[Gospel_van]

Certainly not as many as we expected. So little evidence of transitional fossils exist that Stephen Gould (huge player in evo. Bio.) and Niles Eldridge proposed the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould couldn't cope with the idea that transitional fossils weren't abundant so he proposed the idea that animals have a long period of stasis (little to no evolutionary change) then due to environmental pressures the animals rapidly change making transitional fossils very hard to find.
This of course, is a theory that is only accepted by the scientific community because it works...Punctuated Equilibrium is a hypothesis that has never been tested/observed...

 

[Skreeper]

Can you have it both ways? If mutations are random, then process is random. What you call "evolution" is not end state, it's a process. Process cannot be random and not random at the same time. It's one of the two. If it is random, then you have orders (upon orders) of magnitude more failed tests, and however you choose to explain their distinction, there should be evidence of it.

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random.

 

[USincognito]

Certainly not as many as we expected. So little evidence of transitional fossils exist that Stephen Gould (huge player in evo. Bio.) and Niles Eldridge proposed the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould couldn't cope with the idea that transitional fossils weren't abundant so he proposed the idea that animals have a long period of stasis (little to no evolutionary change) then due to environmental pressures the animals rapidly change making transitional fossils very hard to find.
This of course, is a theory that is only accepted by the scientific community because it works...Punctuated Equilibrium is a hypothesis that has never been tested/observed...

There is so much wrong with this I'm going to focus on the part I've bolded. PE was not proposed to explain a lack of transitional fossils since no such lack exists, nor did it in the 1970s. The issue that needed resolving was the abundance of fossils representing transition at taxa above species level relative to the paucity of these at the species level.

 

[Gospel_van]

There is so much wrong with this I'm going to focus on the part I've bolded. PE was not proposed to explain a lack of transitional fossils since no such lack exists, nor did it in the 1970s. The issue that needed resolving was the abundance of fossils representing transition at taxa above species level relative to the paucity of these at the species level.

So PE was introduced to explain the lack of fossils at a species level?

 

[sfs]

So PE was introduced to explain the lack of fossils at a species level?

A relative lack at the species level, yes.

This of course, is a theory that is only accepted by the scientific community because it works...Punctuated Equilibrium is a hypothesis that has never been tested/observed...

Both of those statements are false. PE has been hotly debated within the scientific community, and it has been debated on the basis of observed data. The jury is still out about how accurate it is as a broad description of morphological change, although there is agreement that rates of change vary a lot.
As for testing. . . have you ever actually read the Gould and Eldredge papers, or any of the other scientific literature on the subject? Here's one of the figures from one of their papers, showing a disputed data set:

It shows size as a function of time for a single species; note that each point represents many individual fossil organisms. The dispute between PE and phyletic gradualism boils down to deciding whether that plot represents continuous change or stasis interrupted by short periods of rapid change.

Here's another figure from the same paper, showing a lineage of 5 early mammals.

Again, does this represent gradual change, or is there a punctuation event or events in there? These are all very similar animals -- you'd probably call them the same animal if you saw them.

Note that the number next to each bar in the second figure represents the number of specimens in that sample. That's something like a hundred transitional fossils in this one tiny part of the tree of life. Is this too few? What is the creationist explanation for these samples, and the overall pattern?

ETA: My figures aren't showing up for some reason. Here are links to them:
First.
Second.

 

[HenryM]

What would the evidence look like? Severely deleterious mutations are embryonic lethal -- they never produce a viable organism to fossilize. Most mutations that are relevant to evolution cause small changes to existing traits. Some of those changes are beneficial, while most aren't. But none of them will look dramatically different when you dig up the skeleton later.

For example, in humans, in some places taller stature has been favored by natural selection, while in other places shorter stature has been favored. We can see the genetic results of natural selection -- how some mutations have increased in frequency in some places. But if you look at human remains from those places, all you'll see is a mix of taller and shorter people; the only way you'll be able to tell which was favored is by looking for long-term trends.

That's not how random mutation that produces complex organism could work in reality.

First, not all "mutations" would be so detrimental that they would kill instantly. After elementary conditions are met, most would be good enough to at least produce a being, as that's basic requirement, even though they would not be good enough to sustain it for long. And even those that would kill instantly, what would it kill - an embrion, a baby in mother's belly? Whatever it would kill, it would mostly still exist in some form.

Secondly, you grossly underestimate number of failed mutations needed for success. It's not twice, or one hundred times, or millions times compared to success. It's, basically, mathematical impossibility, since it's building complex organisms founded on a complex DNA code.

But to be generous, let's say that it takes one trillion fails to get a success. That's generous for random system that knows nothing what it's doing. Since the system is not conscious, it can't have the benefit of any conscious correction. All the while it builds something extremely complex. Number of failed tests would be massive.

So, for one successful species, at certain point in time, there would be one trillion unsuccessful. Even if each of the one trillion lived a day, and each of the one trillion was represented by one specimen, it would still be one trillion beings, some old, some young, some in embrion phases. Then you take all the spieces that exist, with each having one trillion failed mutation cousins. Then you take time, where as time progresses random mutations grow exponentially.

Earth would be covered all over with unsuccessful mutations, since those would represent majority of things that once lived. That's how distribution of failed tests in a random system work.

You believe a non-conscious random system can produce such complex organisms we see today, with failed mutations either killed off immediately (and conveniently when explanation is needed) or with only some slight changes? That's not how it would work. It would be messy all over the place. To get from monkey/primate to human would be messy, not to mention all previous steps needed.

 

[Gospel_van]

A relative lack at the species level, yes.

Both of those statements are false. PE has been hotly debated within the scientific community, and it has been debated on the basis of observed data. The jury is still out about how accurate it is as a broad description of morphological change, although there is agreement that rates of change vary a lot.
As for testing. . . have you ever actually read the Gould and Eldredge papers, or any of the other scientific literature on the subject? Here's one of the figures from one of their papers, showing a disputed data set:

It shows size as a function of time for a single species; note that each point represents many individual fossil organisms. The dispute between PE and phyletic gradualism boils down to deciding whether that plot represents continuous change or stasis interrupted by short periods of rapid change.

Here's another figure from the same paper, showing a lineage of 5 early mammals.

Again, does this represent gradual change, or is there a punctuation event or events in there? These are all very similar animals -- you'd probably call them the same animal if you saw them.

Note that the number next to each bar in the second figure represents the number of specimens in that sample. That's something like a hundred transitional fossils in this one tiny part of the tree of life. Is this too few? What is the creationist explanation for these samples, and the overall pattern?

ETA: My figures aren't showing up for some reason. Here are links to them:
First.
Second.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]I gladly stand corrected. I thought PE was an explanation of the lack of transitional fossils from higher taxonomic levels (family up) rather than at a species level. I have no issue with fossils appearing to be transitions from one species to another.


"What is the creationist explanation for these samples, and the overall pattern?"

My view on the samples is exactly what I would expect. I do not deny the process of animals adapting to their environment, I deny the idea that animals started from a single cell organism and from that every animal came about...
To keep it simple, I believe exactly what you believe except:
1.) God created all the animal kinds (a kind is roughly a family)
2.) those original kinds adapted to best fit their environment. For example, all dogs, foxes, wolves (canines) share a similar ancestral lineage. This hypothetical ancestral canine was originally created by God.
3.) this whole process took place in less than 4400 years. [/COLOR]

 

[HenryM]

The take a blunt example mutations that kill the the organism in the womb or egg will never fossilise.

So you either have mutation that kills off egg, or success? Nothing in between? That's not how it would work.

Most mutations would be killed off in egg. Then there would be mutations killed off while being baby in mother's belly, giving problems, and probably death, to mothers too, so, inconvenient to the whole enterprise. Next would be beings brought to this world. Next would be those who could live some short agonizing life. Next would be those who could live somewhat longer agonizing life. Next would be... and so on.

All those would have to be massive in numbers in a non-conscious random system in order to come up with a "success". Even though most mutations would live the shortest, it would still need massive amount of mutations, collectively, to fix everything, all steps of the way to success.

As I described couple of posts above, Earth would be covered with failed tests, because that's how random system work. Even getting from monkey/primate to men would be a mess. You know how monkey looks and operates, and you know how human looks and operates. But random non-conscious system doesn't know how human should look and operate based on a monkey. Variations are almost endless, and if not endless, then statistically staggering. Those variations would have to be performed.

 

[Larniavc]

Nothing in between? That's not how it would work.

That's not what I said. I said it was a blunt example. There are neutral to fitness examples.

Many mutations are neutral to fitness.

The world would not be covered in failed tests because the vast majority of the failed tests don't survive.

I don't get the confusion, here.

Mutations occur and if they lead to a survival advantage they get fixed in the population over many generations.

If they don't, they don't. It is that straight forward.

 

[HenryM]

The world would not be covered in failed tests because the vast majority of the failed tests don't survive.

They would still exist. You understand that? Failed test still existed. It has to exist first in order not to survive. And in random system that creates something complex, failed test would be massive. Even if those would be only babies, it would be massive compared to success.

You nonchalantly accept that non-concisous system could create human out of monkey/primate, as in some straight line with maybe some detours, without acknowledging massive amount of failed species in between needed for such task.

 

[USincognito]

So PE was introduced to explain the lack of fossils at a species level?

I think I clearly explained the situation that prompted G&E to propose PE.

 

[USincognito]

That's not how random mutation that produces complex organism could work in reality.

First, not all "mutations" would be so detrimental that they would kill instantly. After elementary conditions are met, most would be good enough to produce a being, as that's basic requirement, but they would not good be enough to sustain it long enough. And even those that would kill instantly, what would it kill - an embrion in mother's belly, a baby in mother's belly? Whatever it would kill, it would mostly still exist in some form.

Secondly, you grossly underestimate number of failed mutations needed for success. It's not twice, or one hundred times, or millions times compared to success. It's, basically, mathematical impossibility, since it's building complex organisms based on complex DNA code.

But to be generous, let's say that it takes one trillion fails to get a success. That's generous for random system that knows nothing what it's doing. Since the system is not conscious, it can't have the benefit of any conscious correction. All the while it builds something extremely complex. Number of failed tests would be massive.

So, for one successful species, at certain point in time, there would be one trillion unsuccessful. Even if each of the one trillion lived a day, and each of the one trillion was represented by one specimen, it would still be one trillion beings, some old, some young, some in embrion phases. Then you take all the spieces that exist, with each having one trillion failed mutation cousins. Then you take time, where as time progresses random mutations grow exponentially.

Earth would be covered all over with unsuccessful mutations, since those would represent majority of things that once lived. That's how distribution of failed tests in a random system work.

You believe a non-conscious random system can produce such complex organisms we see today, with failed mutations either killed off immediately (and conveniently when explanation is needed) or with only some slight changes? That's not how it would work. It would be messy all over the place. To get from monkey/primate to human would be messy, not to mention all previous steps needed.

Where did you get your information on genetics, because you certainly have a lot of thoughts on the subject.

 

[HenryM]

Where did you get your information on genetics, because you certainly have a lot of thoughts on the subject.

Maybe reply to what's presented, if you have anything to add.

 

[Larniavc]

They would still exist. You understand that? Failed test still existed. It has to exist first in order not to survive. And in random system that creates something complex, failed test would be massive. Even if those would be only babies, it would be massive compared to success.

You nonchalantly accept that non-concisous system could create human out of monkey/primate, as in some straight line with maybe some detours, without acknowledging massive amount of failed species in between needed for such task.

That's not the case. All of the homo line could be called failed species as there is only one extant homo species left.

That seems to be the failed tests that you are looking for.

No challenge to to ToE at all.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe reply to what's presented, if you have anything to add.

Whenever you post something substantive and worthy of comment and I will gladly do so.

I'll take your evasion as a "I have no formal education or training in genetics".

 

[sfs]

I gladly stand corrected. I thought PE was an explanation of the lack of transitional fossils from higher taxonomic levels (family up) rather than at a species level. I have no issue with fossils appearing to be transitions from one species to another.

Cool. Gladly standing corrected is unusual around here.

To keep it simple, I believe exactly what you believe except:
1.) God created all the animal kinds (a kind is roughly a family)
2.) those original kinds adapted to best fit their environment. For example, all dogs, foxes, wolves (canines) share a similar ancestral lineage. This hypothetical ancestral canine was originally created by God.
3.) this whole process took place in less than 4400 years.

There are a number of problems with this kind of model. Huge, ginormous problems, actually. Restricting ourselves to the topic of fossils, one big problem is that many higher taxonomic categories do have extensive sets of transitional fossils. The series leading to mammals and that leading to whales are well studied and well known, for example.

 

[sfs]

That's not how random mutation that produces complex organism could work in reality.

I'm talking about accumulated small changes caused by mutations. Whether that's adequate to explain major increases in complexity or major biological innovations is an interesting question, but not a relevant one. The great bulk of evolution doesn't involve either. All mammals, for example, display a similar degree of complexity, and the only major innovation within mammals that I can think of -- the placenta -- doesn't fossilize at all. And for this kind of evolution, what I'm talking about is exactly how mutation produces change.

First, not all "mutations" would be so detrimental that they would kill instantly. After elementary conditions are met, most would be good enough to at least produce a being, as that's basic requirement, even though they would not be good enough to sustain it for long. And even those that would kill instantly, what would it kill - an embrion, a baby in mother's belly? Whatever it would kill, it would mostly still exist in some form.

Sure. And once in a great while an embryo is preserved as a fossil. So what is it that you're imagining you'd see in embryos with deleterious mutations? Don't just go on your imagination: look at real mutations. In humans, severe mutations result in miscarriages or birth defects. Do you think you could spot most such mutations by looking at the resulting skeletons?

Most deleterious mutations aren't severe. Do you think you can detect them by eye? Look around, because you'll see plenty of them: every human is born with something like one or two new deleterious mutations. Does everyone around you look like a monster?

Secondly, you grossly underestimate number of failed mutations needed for success. It's not twice, or one hundred times, or millions times compared to success. It's, basically, mathematical impossibility, since it's building complex organisms founded on a complex DNA code.

Uh, what? The numbers you just made up, based on nothing at all, don't seem to have anything to do with real genetics. Humans, just within the last 20,000 years or so, have produced at least hundreds of successful beneficial mutations. During that time they've also produced tens of billions (not trillions) of deleterious mutations that have been weeded out by natural selection. We've got cemeteries filled with the dead from that period. Can you spot the failed experiments among them?