Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

[Loudmouth]

We both know that while those skulls are in chronological order, aside from the last one, which is a modern human skull, it's actually impossible to be certain that any of these are ancestral species to humans (case in point, how we thought for a very long time that Neanderthals were a human ancestor, and some preserved DNA of Neanderthals demonstrated otherwise... aside from some potential cross breeding between the two).

That is not what is being claimed. We are saying that they are transitional which can be determined by their morphological features. Transitional and ancestral are two different things. Side branches on the hominid tree can still inform us of the morphology present in the direct lineage. As Darwin put it:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. "--Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

Also, Wiki has a good definition:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[citation needed]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Furthermore, we can't demonstrate that these species evolved from each other either without significant uncertainty about it. And you want to claim we can daisy chain them? Laughable, they are a nice demonstration of concept, but they are not a genetic chain from one to the other. By chance, it is more likely that the majority of these aren't a part of the direct line to humans than for them all to be.

They still show a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, and more modern features as we get closer to modern times. That is exactly what we should see if evolution is true, even if they are side branches to the direct human lineage.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, you're a gentlewoman and a scholar!

To be fair, AV, they are still intermediates. Intermediate species are called such for having a combination of traits associated with 2 or more modern species, in a more primordial sense. But Loudmouth is writing a check he can't cash when he suggests that they are a daisy chain of steps in human evolution. They might be, but more likely at least a few of them aren't a part of our direct lineage and have no modern species descended from them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is not what is being claimed. We are saying that they are transitional which can be determined by their morphological features. Transitional and ancestral are two different things. Side branches on the hominid tree can still inform us of the morphology present in the direct lineage. As Darwin put it:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. "--Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

Also, Wiki has a good definition:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[citation needed]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil



They still show a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, and more modern features as we get closer to modern times. That is exactly what we should see if evolution is true, even if they are side branches to the direct human lineage.

I'm not saying they aren't transitional in the sense of what traits they have, I'm just saying you can't daisy chain them. They'd have to be confirmed part of the same evolutionary line for you to do that, and they aren't. If, say, half of them are not a part of the human evolutionary line, treating them as if they all are would seriously mess up timescales.

 

[Loudmouth]

To be fair, AV, they are still intermediates. Intermediate species are called such for having a combination of traits associated with 2 or more modern species, in a more primordial sense. But Loudmouth is writing a check he can't cash when he suggests that they are a daisy chain of steps in human evolution.

How so? A daisy chain doesn't require direct ancestors or descendants.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How so? A daisy chain doesn't require direct ancestors or descendants.

Then it's a web, not a chain, because you'd have far more animals that are similar transitions living at the same time than the one we descended from.

dai·sy chain
noun

1. 1.
   a string of daisies threaded together by their stems.
   • 
     
     

verb
COMPUTING

1. 1.
   connect (several devices) together in a linear series.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then it's a web, not a chain, because you'd have far more animals that are similar transitions living at the same time than the one we descended from.

You have a chain of specimens showing progressively more modern human features through time. You don't have to know direct lineal relationships in order to establish this chain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have a chain of specimens showing progressively more modern human features through time. You don't have to know direct lineal relationships in order to establish this chain.

But it's not linear when you have multiple species potentially taking the same spot in the chain. A daisy chain is linear. I know this was a nitpick to begin with, but obviously, when you tell people like AV that these form a daisy chain, they think you mean that they are all a part of the human evolutionary line. It gives a false impression that could be taken advantage of in a debate. You aren't exclusively debating people scientifically literate in biology, so when you don't clarify, you risk spreading information that isn't correct.

This is more of a web than a daisy chain, and while we know the order, we aren't sure how much these species are related to us... aside from Neanderthals and the ones alive today. And that has a margin of error too.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it's not linear when you have multiple species potentially taking the same spot in the chain.

All of those species contain transitional features which are part of the linear chain.

I know this was a nitpick to begin with, but obviously, when you tell people like AV that these form a daisy chain, they think you mean that they are all a part of the human evolutionary line.

That's their problem. We are saying that they are either transitional or intermediate, not ancestral.

This is more of a web than a daisy chain, and while we know the order, we aren't sure how much these species are related to us... aside from Neanderthals and the ones alive today. And that has a margin of error too.

All of those side branches form part of the daisy chain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All of those species contain transitional features which are part of the linear chain.



That's their problem. We are saying that they are either transitional or intermediate, not ancestral.



All of those side branches form part of the daisy chain.

XD daisy chains don't have side branches. It's a nitpick, and also, when you know your audience is not necessarily scientifically literate, and your goal is to debate them effectively, you have to accommodate your posts to take that into account. Do you really want to risk misinforming people because "it's their fault for not knowing any better?", when you do know better, and could easily prevent them from drawing an incorrect conclusion from your posts?

 

[Loudmouth]

XD daisy chains don't have side branches. It's a nitpick, and also, when you know your audience is not necessarily scientifically literate, and your goal is to debate them effectively, you have to accommodate your posts to take that into account. Do you really want to risk misinforming people because "it's their fault for not knowing any better?", when you do know better, and could easily prevent them from drawing an incorrect conclusion from your posts?

When someone claims that scientists are wrong, it is incumbent upon them to know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't understand the science, then they shouldn't be debating it to begin with.

As to the daisy chain, here it is:

There is an unbroken temporal chain of hominids that are progressively more human through time. Each species overlaps the others.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, AV, they are still intermediates. Intermediate species are called such for having a combination of traits associated with 2 or more modern species, in a more primordial sense. But Loudmouth is writing a check he can't cash when he suggests that they are a daisy chain of steps in human evolution. They might be, but more likely at least a few of them aren't a part of our direct lineage and have no modern species descended from them.

I don't believe they were daisy-chained at all.

That would mean A gave birth to B, which gave birth to C, and so on.

Meaning they are all females and direct relatives of each other.

Whether the line is horizontal (collateral?), or whether it is vertical (ancestral?), it's nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Again, from my favorite example:

Notice some of the lines are horizontal, some are vertical.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a chain of specimens showing progressively more modern human features through time.

Are they father-son related?

If so, all you have is a multiple-generation picture.

You don't have something daisy-chained from one genus to another genus.

Kent Hovind said it well:

You can't prove any fossil had a child.

You don't have to know direct lineal relationships in order to establish this chain.

That's because you're expected to connect-the-dots on paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe they were daisy-chained at all.

Your beliefs don't change the facts.

The evidence is that there are transitional fossils just as the theory of evolution predicts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

When someone claims that scientists are wrong, it is incumbent upon them to know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't understand the science, then they shouldn't be debating it to begin with.

As to the daisy chain, here it is:

There is an unbroken temporal chain of hominids that are progressively more human through time. Each species overlaps the others.

Australopithecus anamensis doesn't overlap any, most certainly not on the right towards the more recent species. Chain break.

 

[Loudmouth]

Australopithecus anamensis doesn't overlap any, most certainly not on the right towards the more recent species. Chain break.

Other species cover those breaks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Other species cover those breaks.

which are...? This is your position, dude, I'm not going to do research for it, and your nice little image definitely doesn't depict those species. It's kinda bad when you have gotten so sloppy, a fellow evolution supporter is raising an eyebrow at you.

I don't even get why you are insisting on it being a daisy chain, like it matters.

 

[Loudmouth]

which are...?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, now that is rather unfortunate in format, given that it resembles family trees, and there is no way of having any reasonable degree of certainty that any of these evolved from each other. Unless that is what it is trying to do, which is extremely faulty. Also, why would you use a 20 year old source, when quite a few new fossil ape species have been discovered since then? You know what, I'll list some of those out for you.
Homo gautengensis discovered in 2010
Homo antecessor discovered in 1997
Homo naledi discovered in 2013, named in 2015
Homo floresiensis discovered in 2003
and those are the ones listed on Wikipedia with more than 1 fossilized individual discovered that isn't suspected of potentially being another species discovered earlier. We criticize creationists for using outdated sources, and it would be hypocrisy for us to do it out of laziness.
Not that it is particularly hard to find a better and more up-to-date image than that http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive this one is even interactive, though I have to nitpick it for calling the creatures "humans" even before the genus Homo appears on the timeline.
Guess what, though, it has a bit of a time gap, doesn't it? Which is supposed to be expected, it's not like we have found a fossil of every species that has ever existed, and the fact of the matter is, we won't ever find all of them. Calling this a daisy chain is incorrect, and I don't understand why you seem to want to assert that it is. Shouldn't you know that there will always be some missing spots in this evolutionary tree? Shouldn't you know that having all of them is hardly necessary for evolution to be supported by the fossil record. So why are you freaking humoring the idea of the daisy chain crap in the first place? What's up with conforming to the often ridiculous creationist demands instead of displaying how the demands are ridiculous? *shakes head* I lead you on a trail of a ridiculous and trivial problem that you should have easily been able to brush away, it should have taken you a sentence to say "it may not fit the dictionary definition of a daisy chain, but it satisfies reasonable requirements of such that it is able to support evolution". Normally, you catch my "stupid" for what it is faster than most, but this one got you for some reason, and I can't fathom why. In any case, I am too perplexed to keep it up, so... end of this mess, I guess.

 

[Ophiolite]

Psycho Sarah and Loudmouth are saying the same thing as far as the essence of the argument is concerned. The problem and disagreement revolve around the use of the word chain. Loudmouth's sense of the meaning of chain almost certainly makes it applicable to the data. However, the meaning of chain as perceived by casual readers in general and creationists in particular, would require that we were dealing with direct ancestors throughout. As Sarah has suggested web would be a more appropriate term - and personally I prefer bush. A bush is a living thing with each branch and bud connected to every other, just as we are connected through time and space to every on of our ancestors and cousins.

I recommend, Loudmouth, that on this one you concede that your position, though technically perhaps correct, creates unwanted refuge for the egregious concepts of AV and his kin.

 

[Hoghead1]

Psycho Sarah and Loudmouth are saying the same thing as far as the essence of the argument is concerned. The problem and disagreement revolve around the use of the word chain. Loudmouth's sense of the meaning of chain almost certainly makes it applicable to the data. However, the meaning of chain as perceived by casual readers in general and creationists in particular, would require that we were dealing with direct ancestors throughout. As Sarah has suggested web would be a more appropriate term - and personally I prefer bush. A bush is a living thing with each branch and bud connected to every other, just as we are connected through time and space to every on of our ancestors and cousins.

I recommend, Loudmouth, that on this one you concede that your position, though technically perhaps correct, creates unwanted refuge for the egregious concepts of AV and his kin.

The web metaphor is often used to describe our essential relatedness, that fact that everything is related to everything else. Reality is like a spider's web, you tweek it here and it wiggles way over there.