Are there transitional fossils?

[USincognito]

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.

Foxes cannot interbreed with wolves and/or coyotes so you're already stretching the "canine kind" beyond what most creationists define it as. That said, what mechanism do you propose that prevents wolves, coyotes and foxes from being related to other Caniformes (like bears and walruses) via common ancestry?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Foxes cannot interbreed with wolves and/or coyotes so you're already stretching the "canine kind" beyond what most creationists define it as. That said, what mechanism do you propose that prevents wolves, coyotes and foxes from being related to other Caniformes (like bears and walruses) via common ancestry?

I believe his answer is "The Bible".

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

 

[Gospel_van]

Foxes cannot interbreed with wolves and/or coyotes so you're already stretching the "canine kind" beyond what most creationists define it as. That said, what mechanism do you propose that prevents wolves, coyotes and foxes from being related to other Caniformes (like bears and walruses) via common ancestry?

What does the ability to interbreed have to do with anything?
We know that if animals change enough, eventually they will not be able to interbreed. I don't see the issue here.

What prevents them is their DNA and the genes within them. What evidence do you have that NEW information has been added to genomes? This would be required for a fox to become a bear for example.

 

[sfs]

What evidence do you have that NEW information has been added to genomes?

Every time a genome mutates, it produces new information. Every time there is a duplication of a piece of a genome, there is an increase in information.

 

[USincognito]

What does the ability to interbreed have to do with anything?
We know that if animals change enough, eventually they will not be able to interbreed. I don't see the issue here.

I was noting that your personal definition of "kind" differed from that of many Creationists. They normally define "kind" as populations that are interfertile.

What prevents them is their DNA and the genes within them.

This is merely an assertion. You're going to need to support it with evidence.

What evidence do you have that NEW information has been added to genomes?

Oh about 5,000 scientific papers published in the last 20 years. Here's four of them discussing whole genome duplication in agnathans and how they led to the diversity of globin genes found in modern vertebrates.

2005
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate
2007
αD-Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
2011
Whole-Genome Duplications Spurred the Functional Diversification of the Globin Gene Superfamily in Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
2013
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins

This would be required for a fox to become a bear for example.

A fox "becoming" a bear would actually falsify evolution. Extant taxa will never evolve into other extant or extinct taxa.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's be clear here: If someone is arguing that there are no random mutations, then all it takes to demonstrate that's wrong is to show someone a picture of an albino animal, or a person with extra fingers (or less fingers) on their hand.

-CryptoLutheran.

 

[HenryM]

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.

You are misdirecting or there's misunderstaning.

To get from monkey/primate to human, mutations have to occur. Those are random. They are not forced by natural selection in any way. Natural selection would shut some of those to continue after a certain period, but mutations first have to occur.

So in order to get from monkey/primate to human, you must have massive mutations that will fail after a certain period, but not immediately. For example, you would have a mutation that changes skin of species that's in a path of "evolving" from monkey/primate to human. Let's call that species monkieman. Monkieman has different skin that monkey, among other things. It became different spieces, like lion and tiger are different spieces. It's "evolving" to human. Monkieman can live and breathe, but it turns out, it's skin is not so suitable for this world, and this spieces slowly dies away. Why slowly? Because it is failing, but it is not the type of failure that produces stopage at the start. (In complex system, you could have success almost half way through, or even almost up to success, and then system would fail. Not all failures end in embrio stages. In fact, massive amount of failed spieces would have to fail later in their life, because system could't produce complete success without those "almost successes". But those "almost successes" are ultimately a failed test.)

So monkieman was living and breathing, and was able to procreate, but it got extinct relatively fast, because it was not calibrated correctly for this world. Monkieman is only one sideways-between-spieces on a path from monkey/primate to human. Those number of failed spieces, like monkieman, would have to be massive when a non-conscious random system creates something complex. Their number combined for all different spieces that "evolve" into new spieces would be staggering.

Evidence of those massive amount of failed spieces is nowhere to be found. You have a problem to scap some "transational" fossils, let alone these.

 

[HenryM]

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?

"Uh, what" all day, your understanding of the topic is modest.

Do you know how many different 10-note or less melodies can be created on a system of available notes on a piano?

More than 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 different 10-note or less melodies. That's 80 quintillions (80 plus 18 zeroes). And just to play them one time would take more than two trillion years.

So you are telling me that when monkey/primate "evolves" to another spieces, based on random mutations of a extremely complex system (not a variation of less than 100 elements), it would evolve in straight line, without evolving into massive amount of failed speices? Not failed embrions or mutations within spieces, but failed spieces who would first have to exist even in a short period in order to fail. You can't move from one successful spieces to another without creating failed spieces in between, especially while the change is driven by non-conscious random system.

 

[Larniavc]

Those number of failed spieces, like monkieman, would have to be massive when a non-conscious random system creates something complex. Their number combined for all different spieces that "evolve" into new spieces would be staggering.

That's an interesting proposition.

Have you got primate mutation rates data I can take a look at to verify this?

I always thought that the already discovered extinct homo species would fit the bill of failed homo species.

But if you could demonstrate that the mutation rates are far higher than would account for those species I would be in your debt.

All the best.

 

[HenryM]

That's an interesting proposition.

Have you got primate mutation rates data I can take a look at to verify this?

I always thought that the already discovered extinct homo species would fit the bill of failed homo species.

But if you could demonstrate that the mutation rates are far higher than would account for those species I would be in your debt.

All the best.

Whatever mutation rates you use, they better be computed based on a scientific law that's provable, like if you would compute how long would it take for an apple to fall down from 100 feet. If they are not computed based on such law, if any, I would treat them as theoretical mutation rates, since that's what they would be, and work from there.

 

[xianghua]

first: a lot of fossils are in the wrong place (even the suppose "transitional" one (i can show you some of them)). and secondly: no fossil can prove any evolution. for instance: a jeep is a "transitional" between a truck and a regular car. does it mean that they evolved from each other? even if they was self replicating the answer is no.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

first: a lot of fossils are in the wrong place (even the suppose "transitional" one, and a lots of them (i can show you some of them)). and secondly: no fossil can prove any evolution. for instance: a jeep is a "transitional" between a truck and a regular car. does it mean that they evolved from each other? even if they was self replicating the answer is no.

Then show us an example of a fossil in the wrong place.

 

[xianghua]

Oh about 5,000 scientific papers published in the last 20 years. Here's four of them discussing whole genome duplication in agnathans and how they led to the diversity of globin genes found in modern vertebrates.

taxa.

globin is about 150 aa long. how many aa do you think that we need for a minimal globin function?

 

[Larniavc]

So you are telling me that when monkey/primate "evolves" to another spieces, based on random mutations of a extremely complex system (not a variation of less than 100 elements), it would evolve in straight line, without evolving into massive amount of failed speices?

No.

I'm saying the line is in fact a bush and that there are a modest amount of 'failures'.

Can you provide the data substantiating your hypothesis that there should be a massive amount of failed homo species (rather than the modest amount that the fossil records shows).

 

[Larniavc]

Whatever mutation rates you use, they better be computed based on a scientific law that's provable, like if you would compute how long would it take for an apple to fall down from 100 feet. If they are not computed based on such law, if any, I would treat them as theoretical mutation rates, since that's what they would be, and work from there.

I sorry I was not more precise in my meaning. I was asking what mutation rates in primates you were using.

My apologies if my meaning was unclear.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have a problem to scap some "transational" fossils, let alone these.

Found em.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and secondly: no fossil can prove any evolution. for instance: a jeep is a "transitional" between a truck and a regular car. does it mean that they evolved from each other? even if they was self replicating the answer is no.

A fossil might not be formal "proof" but it is strong evidence. Can you give a logical reason why we would find fossils like these in ancient layers if not for evolution?

 

[HenryM]

No.

I'm saying the line is in fact a bush and that there are a modest amount of 'failures'.

Can you provide the data substantiating your hypothesis that there should be a massive amount of failed homo species (rather than the modest amount that the fossil records shows).

I can't provide you with data on mutating rates that was computed with a scientific, provable, formula based on a law, like law of gravity, for example, which provides scientific, provable, formula for calculation. Do you have data on mutating rates that were computed with a scientific, provable, formula based on a law (not a calculation set to match available data about extracted fossils)?

I am saying to take a glance on proposition, and then decide how to go about it.

In a system of less than 100 elements (piano notes) you can create 80 quintillions different short (10 note or less) melodies.

With DNA, which let's say has about half a billion pieces of actual information content, how many different DNA variations are possible between monkey/primate and human?

5% difference, by the way, is 25 million pieces of information. And, system would have to know which 5% of the half a billion pieces to change, and then, how precisely to change them. But system can't know it, since it's non-conscious, so the system would have to go about changing everything in various directions, until success sticks.

Take look again at how many different short melodies are available on a piano? 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be played one time each for more than 2 trillion years.

How many variations are possible in a pool of only 5% of information content of DNA - 25 million pieces of information - when a system is changing those 25 millions bits in random way? You tell me. And non-conscious system wouldn't work with 25 million pieces, but whole batch of half a billion. I propose number of failed spieces between monkey/primate and human would be massive.

And we are tallking only about transformation from monkey/primate to human. What about all other transformations?

 

[sfs]

"Uh, what" all day, your understanding of the topic is modest.

Disagreeing with you does not mean my understanding of the topic is modest.

Do you know how many different 10-note melodies can be created on a system of available notes on a piano?

More than 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 different 10-note melodies. That's 80 quintillions (80 plus 18 zeroes). And just to play them one time would take more than two trillion years.

That is (a) irrelevant to the topic at hand and (b) wrong. (The actual number is 27.9 quintillion.)

So you are telling me that when monkey/primate "evolves" to another spieces, based on random mutations of a extremely complex system (not a variation of less than 100 elements), it would evolve in straight line, without evolving into massive amount of failed speices?

I didn't say anything about a straight line. A straight line in what space? What is true is that two isolated populations in a single species will diverge from each other as they change. And I see no reason to think there should be a massive number of failed species. Every mutation that becomes common in a population will be either beneficial or neutral, so why should a bunch of individual beneficial changes produce a failed species? (In fact, I can't figure out how there could be that many attempted species, since there is a limit to how many distinct populations something like humans can maintain.)