Do you agree with these statements?

[klutedavid]

Have you ever read this particular article? The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

It's also packed with references for further reading. If you're interested in the evidence of whale evolution, this should be a good springboard.

Still peddling the same idea, the same extreme example, pin the tail on the species that belongs in the whale lineage.

Pakicetus
The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago. (talkorigins.org/features/whales)

See I read the article.

There is no way of knowing if Pakicetus is really an ancestor of the whale. No evidence that Pakicetus actually swam or or even spent any time near the water. Being a hoofed species, Pakicetus is very unlikely to have ventured near or into the water. Predators occupy the area around water holes, rivers, e.t.c. That's where the predators congregate.

Modern observations of hoofed species near water sources such as rivers and ponds, show they are very reluctant. To venture near the water's edge except to drink, even then, they are extremely troubled and wary. Getting a drink is not something they want to do, it's what they must do.

Pakicetus is a tetrapod and there is a profound number of steps in the transitional morphology. To transit from a hoofed tetrapod to a whale. It is an impossible transition.

No hoofed tetrapod will spend time anywhere near the water's
edge.

 

[klutedavid]

Generally speaking, populations of creatures are said to belong to different species when they are not interfertile. But there really isn't a hard line and during speciation there will generally be an extended period of partial interfertility. That is why the differentiation of species is often difficult and sometimes controversial. "Species" is merely a human construct imposed on what is almost a continuum of living phenotypes.


What about speciation observed in living creatures?

I'm after the arrow of the evolution of the species across A, B, and C. The evidence must be in the fossil record for A to B, e.t.c.

The claim of the Evolutionary theory is that the fossil record demonstrates this transition of the species, from A to B.

A modern example of speciation, if there was an example. Is not really dealing with the issue at hand.

 

[klutedavid]

Species aren't claimed to be unchangeable and absolute. Ultimately species are practical human labels for degrees of variation.

Human's tamed wolves and slowly warped them into dogs... but it would be impossible to point to the first dog.

Typically with concurrent sexual species they are considered separate if they cannot or typically do not interbreed.

It's more complicated with extinct related species... I think it mostly comes down arbitrary degrees of genetic or morphological difference.

What have wolves and dogs got to do with anything? Why insert that trivia into the conversation. They are not separate species, wolves and dogs.

 

[klutedavid]

Thus:

• You are unaware of the wealth of evidence.

• That's what I am asking for, the hard evidence, irrefutable evidence.

  [*]You reject the wealth of evidence.

  Have not really seen any evidence of note, still waiting.

  [*]You cherry pick allegedly adverse examples

  I am not the one providing examples of Evolution in the fossil record. Your the one that is supplying the evidence.

  [*]You reject the scientific method, in which inference, properly tested is a wholly acceptable technique.

  If you can apply that test to the species in transit in that fossil record, then inference is valid. I will not accept the illusion of patterns without the direct evidence. No smoke and mirrors.

  [*]You resort to false descriptions of the method. (Suggestion? Huh!)

  That is what a pattern represents, an idea that is imprinted on the abrupt appearance of nearly all species. That is, the fossils in the fossil record.

  You might at least have the courtesty to address me by proper forum name. I didn't, for example, call you klutzdavid.

  Just a typo, relax and take a deep breath. You can call me klutzdavid if you wish.

  It is apparent that your mind is closed. That is a pity. I would be happy to discuss the quality of source data, the support for the inferences, the plausible alternatives in an open manner, but not with the brick wall of your disbelief. I have better things to do with my time. Please don't waste your time by replying.

  Need the evidence to support the theory, the evidence required is substantial.

 

[pitabread]

See I read the article.

You read the whole thing and checked the references in only 20 minutes? You must read quickly.

Modern observations of hoofed species near water sources such as rivers and ponds, show they are very reluctant. To venture near the water's edge except to drink, even then, they are extremely troubled and wary. Getting a drink is not something they want to do, it's what they must do.

Not familiar with these guys, eh?

Or these?

Moose also eat many aquatic plants, including lilies and pondweed.[114] Moose are excellent swimmers and are known to wade into water to eat aquatic plants. This trait serves a second purpose in cooling down the moose on summer days and ridding itself of black flies. Moose are thus attracted to marshes and river banks during warmer months as both provide suitable vegetation to eat and water to wet themselves in. Moose have been known to dive underwater to reach plants on lake bottoms, and the complex snout may assist the moose in this type of feeding. ​

Moose - Wikipedia

Pakicetus is a tetrapod and there is a profound number of steps in the transitional morphology. To transit from a hoofed tetrapod to a whale. It is an impossible transition.

Definitely not impossible both based on the evidence and the variety of semi-aquatic species demonstrating the viability of such ecological niches that you appear to be unaware exist.

List of semiaquatic tetrapods - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

I'm after the arrow of the evolution of the species across A, B, and C. The evidence must be in the fossil record for A to B, e.t.c.

The claim of the Evolutionary theory is that the fossil record demonstrates this transition of the species, from A to B.

That's not at all how it works. We have no way of knowing of precisely which species are in direct lineages or not. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that we would necessarily find specific species that perfectly fit in an exact lineage based on the paucity of the fossil record relative to overall populations.

Rather, fossils are simply representative of biological forms that existed at particular points in time. And looking at such forms, we can see patterns in the changes of those forms over time. That is how transitional fossils work; by looking for forms that show intermediary characteristics between earlier and later forms.

Whether species A specifically gives rise to species B is largely irrelevant.

 

[klutedavid]

You read the whole thing and checked the references in only 20 minutes? You must read quickly.

Yes, I am fast in the area of comprehension and spotting extrapolation in an argument.

Not familiar with these guys, eh?

The most recent theory of the origins of Hippopotamidae suggests that hippos and whales shared a common semiaquatic ancestor that branched off from other artiodactyls around 60 million years ago.[13][15] This hypothesised ancestral group likely split into two branches around 54 million years ago.[12] One branch would evolve into cetaceans, possibly beginning about 52 million years ago, with the protowhale Pakicetus. (wikipedia)

End of argument. Pakicetus is a hoofed species and unlikely to have inhabited areas of soft ground, such as near water.

Also notice, 'likely split', 'suggests', this is not the language one uses when one has direct evidence. How does anyone know that a split even occurred, 54 million years ago? This is an hypothesis; as very little is known about Pakicetus. I have seen no direct evidence that Pakicetus is a member of any protowhale lineage. The odds are stacked against Pakicetus being a candidate.

Cataloging the diversity of life on Earth is challenging enough, but when scientists attempt to draw a phylogeny -- the branching family tree of a group of species over their evolutionary history -- the challenge goes from merely difficult to potentially impossible. The fossil record is the only direct evidence scientists have about the history of species diversity, but it can be full of holes or totally nonexistent, depending on the type of organisms. The only hope in such cases is to infer historical diversity from modern DNA sequences, but such techniques have a fatal flaw: the results they provide are demonstrably incorrect. (sciencedaily)

I would hope that you desist from following a morphology of rabbit holes.

 

[klutedavid]

That's not at all how it works. We have no way of knowing of precisely which species are in direct lineages or not. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that we would necessarily find specific species that perfectly fit in an exact lineage based on the paucity of the fossil record relative to overall populations.

Rather, fossils are simply representative of biological forms that existed at particular points in time. And looking at such forms, we can see patterns in the changes of those forms over time. That is how transitional fossils work; by looking for forms that show intermediary characteristics between earlier and later forms.

Whether species A specifically gives rise to species B is largely irrelevant.

So let's get this straight my friend.

There does not exist a series of fossils illustrating the transition of species in a phylogeny. According to the theory of Evolution. There is instead a suggestion of, a pattern of, a transition of species in a phylogeny.

This appears to be more of an hypothesis, rather than a theory. A pattern missing the direct evidence. I find this confronting.

I should have known better that asking for direct evidence.

 

[pitabread]

So let's get this straight my friend.

There does not exist a series of fossils illustrating the transition of species in a phylogeny. According to the theory of Evolution. There is instead a suggestion of, a pattern of, a transition of species in a phylogeny.

This appears to be more of an hypothesis, rather than a theory. A pattern missing the direct evidence. I find this confronting.

I should have known better that asking for direct evidence.

If you're expecting every single fossil that has been uncovered to immediately have a fossil ancestor and/or predecessor, that's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

If you want to dismiss the fossil record on that basis, that's your prerogative. However, it still doesn't change the fact that fossils exist and the patterns of morphological change over time also exists.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, I am fast in the area of comprehension and spotting extrapolation in an argument.

For the record, I don't believe that you read the whole thing, much less checked a single reference. It appears you did little more than skim to the section involving Pakicetus.

The most recent theory of the origins of Hippopotamidae

<snip irrelevance>

I didn't bring up hippos to discuss their ancestry. I did it to point out that there are modern species that live semi-aquatic lifestyles in contrast to your claim that no hoofed mammals would live such a lifestyle.

E.g.:

No hoofed tetrapod will spend time anywhere near the water's edge.

That claim is simply incorrect and you appear to be unfamiliar with the existence of species like hippos, moose, etc.

If you want to try to make arguments about animal behaviors, don't do it on the basis of behaviors that we already know are quite plausible because we directly observe such behaviors in modern species.

Cataloging the diversity of life on Earth is challenging enough, but when scientists attempt to draw a phylogeny -- the branching family tree of a group of species over their evolutionary history -- the challenge goes from merely difficult to potentially impossible. The fossil record is the only direct evidence scientists have about the history of species diversity, but it can be full of holes or totally nonexistent, depending on the type of organisms. The only hope in such cases is to infer historical diversity from modern DNA sequences, but such techniques have a fatal flaw: the results they provide are demonstrably incorrect. (sciencedaily)

FYI, but quote-mining sources you haven't read isn't helping your argument here either. Especially when said source immediately refutes your own argument (e.g. that fossil reconstructions of ancestral lineages can't be trusted).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also notice, 'likely split', 'suggests', this is not the language one uses when one has direct evidence. How does anyone know that a split even occurred, 54 million years ago? This is an hypothesis; as very little is known about Pakicetus. I have seen no direct evidence that Pakicetus is a member of any protowhale lineage. The odds are stacked against Pakicetus being a candidate.

No this is how scientists talk. (And it is encouraging, that the Wikipedia article from which you copy-pasted, follows this form.) We don't deal in absolute certainty in science, so that's how we talk. When you hear someone talk with absolute certainty about things that are this far removed from direct observation then you should question their projection of confidence. (There are some scientific facts that we can speak of with certainty, like the oceans are mostly water, water is made of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, and so forth.)

This type of language is particularly appropriate when reconstructing a past event.

 

[Job 33:6]

@klutedavid

I think it's fantastic that you recognize the existence of the fossil succession.

If you're expecting every single fossil that has been uncovered to immediately have a fossil ancestor and/or predecessor, that's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

If you want to dismiss the fossil record on that basis, that's your prerogative. However, it still doesn't change the fact that fossils exist and the patterns of morphological change over time also exists.

@klutedavid

I think this really does it. It sounds like you're asking for fossils for every single species.

But as mentioned a million times before, having a practically infinite number of fossils is not necessary to demonstrate a succession that aligns with various other fields such as viral dna studies, genetic phylogenies, phylogenies of comparative anatomy, phylogenies of protein studies, biogeographic distributions and more.

But I am happy to see that you recognize that a fossil succession does exist, ie fish>fish/amphibian hybrids>amphibians>amphibian/reptile hybrids>reptiles>reptile/ mammal and reptile/bird hybrids> modern day birds and mammals throughout the geologic column. That's a good start!

 

[Job 33:6]

For the record, I don't believe that you read the whole thing, much less checked a single reference. It appears you did little more than skim to the section involving Pakicetus.



I didn't bring up hippos to discuss their ancestry. I did it to point out that there are modern species that live semi-aquatic lifestyles in contrast to your claim that no hoofed mammals would live such a lifestyle.

E.g.:



That claim is simply incorrect and you appear to be unfamiliar with the existence of species like hippos, moose, etc.

If you want to try to make arguments about animal behaviors, don't do it on the basis of behaviors that we already know are quite plausible because we directly observe such behaviors in modern species.



FYI, but quote-mining sources you haven't read isn't helping your argument here either. Especially when said source immediately refutes your own argument (e.g. that fossil reconstructions of ancestral lineages can't be trusted).

The hippo conversation was hilarious!

 

[Kylie]

I struggle with the concept, that a tetrapod, a Zebra, could become an aquatic animal. That somehow it's legs would get shorter and shorter, then the hoofs would change into fins.

The zebra would develop a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control. The nasal intake would gradually shift over millions of years, up onto the top of the skull to become a blowhole.

The Zebra eyes would morph into underwater eyes. Slowly over millions of years.

Then the Zebra would acquire a taste for seawater, I don't need freshwater anymore.

A massive restructure of the skeleton of the Zebra.

Ability to nurse young underwater.

Call me an evolution atheist if you like. I lack the belief that a Zebra could become a whale.

Each one of those things could be an example of the differences that I spoke of.

In a population of Zebra, there would be some that have longer than average legs, and some that have shorter than average legs.

If having shorter than average legs, then those individuals with the slightly shorter legs would have a slight advantage. And thus that trait would be passed on to any offspring.

So the process I described explains how such a change could happen, over many generations.

 

[Gene2memE]

What I want is the evidence itself that species, say fish, become tetrapods. Not, can you see the link or the pattern. I'm after hard evidence because I lack the belief, the belief in the evolution of plants to animals, fish to tetrapods, e.t.c.

Convince me with the examples of this evolution of species.

If you're honest about engaging with the evidence, here's some scholarly reading on the state of evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition:

The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations
Problems in Fish-to-Tetrapod Transition: Genetic Expeditions Into Old Specimens

The first gives a broad overview of the fossil evidence as of 2009, the second provides an overview into problems with our understanding of how parts of the transition occurred on a genetic level (while also providing an excellent summary of what we do know).

 

[klutedavid]

If you're honest about engaging with the evidence, here's some scholarly reading on the state of evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition:

The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations
Problems in Fish-to-Tetrapod Transition: Genetic Expeditions Into Old Specimens

The first gives a broad overview of the fossil evidence as of 2009, the second provides an overview into problems with our understanding of how parts of the transition occurred on a genetic level (while also providing an excellent summary of what we do know).

Read it, interesting.

One of the great evolutionary transitions from fins to feet and weight bearing legs at that. Gills to lungs, is a monumental development also. A truly formidable transition requiring the sacrifice of innumerable mice.

The information on the change in the bone composition of the skull of the fish.

The dermatocranium of fish skulls, that consists of multiple dermal plates, has experienced major reorganizations in its morphology and composition during the evolution into tetrapods (Coates, 1996; Daeschler et al., 2006).

This represents a very deep problem and one that may keep researches, busy for a very long time.

I never realized the scale and the complexity of that transition from fish to tetrapod. At first, I thought it very unlikely but after reading this article. It seems almost an impossibility, far to many deep changes, the heavier skeleton, the bone itself needs to morph. Explaining the change from fins to feet is almost inconceivable.

I also understand the tremendous focus on the genetics, the genetic switches needed to facilitate such tremendous changes across the fish. That is where the answers will arise, if there are answers to these questions. No doubt many more questions will stem from this genetic research and don't expect a solution soon.

 

[klutedavid]

No this is how scientists talk. (And it is encouraging, that the Wikipedia article from which you copy-pasted, follows this form.) We don't deal in absolute certainty in science, so that's how we talk. When you hear someone talk with absolute certainty about things that are this far removed from direct observation then you should question their projection of confidence. (There are some scientific facts that we can speak of with certainty, like the oceans are mostly water, water is made of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, and so forth.)

This type of language is particularly appropriate when reconstructing a past event.

It seems like some form of methodology of approximation, intuitive leaps, near enough is good enough approach.

This fish has eyes on top of the skull, it must be becoming an amphibian?

Paleontology is a rough and tumble scientific pursuit.

 

[klutedavid]

Each one of those things could be an example of the differences that I spoke of.

In a population of Zebra, there would be some that have longer than average legs, and some that have shorter than average legs.

If having shorter than average legs, then those individuals with the slightly shorter legs would have a slight advantage. And thus that trait would be passed on to any offspring.

So the process I described explains how such a change could happen, over many generations.

The shorter legs stop the Zebra escaping quickly from a predator. So how do you explain these shortening legs, and how that could gift some advantage to the Zebra.

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems like some form of methodology of approximation, intuitive leaps, near enough is good enough approach.

This fish has eyes on top of the skull, it must be becoming an amphibian?

Paleontology is a rough and tumble scientific pursuit.

If fish of the time had eyes on the sides of the skull, and tetrapods had eyes on top of the skull, and intermediates such as Tiktaalik was a fish with eyes on top of the skull...

Then that's really the basis of having a transitional fossils. It isn't a complex or jaw dropping matter.
Now obviously tiktaalik had many of these in between features, the above just being 1 example, you mentioned the skull, of course tiktaalik had a neck and could move it's head independently from it's body, which is certainly something unlike fish but more like tetrapods as well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The definitions are impossible to define. Absolute knowledge is necessary to define words such as, 'natural', 'universe', 'existence', 'spiritual', 'God'. That is why philosophy exists, an endless debate about the meaning of terms.

It's true that every definition involves words that themselves need definition, and some concepts are vague or ambiguous in themselves, but we can usually get close enough via explanations and qualifications in specific contexts. As Wittgenstein observed, the meaning of words is in their usage.