Gaps in the fossil record debunks evolution

[Naraoia]

http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Williamson1981b.pdf

This is a pretty interesting paper.

Hmm, pretty sure I've heard about this in a lecture years ago and then never read it. Thanks for bringing it back to my attention!

 

[rush1169]

Thank you for the links and explanations. I've read, watched, and listened to what the ToE has to offer (through the years, not just your links). When transitional fossils were not found (by that I mean from a short neck to a long neck, not a dog to a dog or a hominid to a human), science then decided that 'punctuated equilibrium' must be the reason why there are no fossils. That a long giraffe neck happened quickly (just a few million years) because a small group of whatever begat a giraffe became isolated from the population and something about it's envionment caused it to grow a long neck and associated internal support systems. Since there were only 10's of millions of generations between the short-necked predecessor and the relative isolation of the creature, we should not find progressively longer necks in the fossil record. I don't buy that.

There are giant gaps in the fossil record and the theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't help that fact. PE should produce more readily isolated fossil groups in concentration. In othe words, PE due to enviornmental isolation should result in smaller, yet a relatively concentrated group of transitional fossils consisting of an A to B progression.

Showing a variety of hominid skulls, a variety of horses, or a variety of whales isn't any different than showing a variety of dog skeletons. There are 300 different breeds of dogs and range in size from 3lbs to 300lbs. They are all related. They all have a common ancestor. Assuming they came from a wolf (I do), go back at least 1.7MY. One can take an ancient wolf skeleton and a modern yorkie skeleton and create a chain of evolution between the two. But that's NOT the evolution I'm talking about. I call that variation.

What the OP pointed out was that there does not exist a coherent transitional fossil set between creature A and creature B, yet every creature in existance or to have ever existed was once a very different creature. Out of the millions of animals exhibiting unique features, we should reasonably expect to find the proverbial short-neck to long-neck progression regardless of your personal worldview.

ETA: The fact that we don't find truely transitionals doesn't "debunk" the ToE, but it does harm it.

 

[DrkSdBls]

ETA: The fact that we don't find truely transitionals doesn't "debunk" the ToE, but it does harm it.

Not really. We find it Frustrating and sometimes more then Disappointing but it doesn't do anything to counter anything in the ToE. Now, you provide something Evidenced that the ToE can not Explain or Directly Contradicts the ToE, Then we can discuss any harm done.

 

[Jro]

Thank you for the links and explanations. I've read, watched, and listened to what the ToE has to offer (through the years, not just your links). When transitional fossils were not found (by that I mean from a short neck to a long neck, not a dog to a dog or a hominid to a human), science then decided that 'punctuated equilibrium' must be the reason why there are no fossils.

You are asking for evidence morphological evolution and you have been presented with it. You're shifting the goal posts to "well I want giraffes, not people" and if we don't produce transitionals within that taxa the whole theory is thrown out?

That a long giraffe neck happened quickly (just a few million years) because a small group of whatever begat a giraffe became isolated from the population and something about it's envionment caused it to grow a long neck and associated internal support systems. Since there were only 10's of millions of generations between the short-necked predecessor and the relative isolation of the creature, we should not find progressively longer necks in the fossil record. I don't buy that.

You're making up your own scenarios here and then blaming science for not validating your idea of evolution.

There are giant gaps in the fossil record and the theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't help that fact. PE should produce more readily isolated fossil groups in concentration. In othe words, PE due to enviornmental isolation should result in smaller, yet a relatively concentrated group of transitional fossils consisting of an A to B progression.

Please show me where punctuated equilibrium makes these claims.

Showing a variety of hominid skulls, a variety of horses, or a variety of whales isn't any different than showing a variety of dog skeletons.

Evolution does not predict that a whale will suddenly give birth to a dog. You're asking simultaneously for a finely resolved chain with many intermediates and then saying that there's not enough change between those intermediates. Big changes take time, but heck, we got those too. Look up the evolution of birds, fishapod evolution, reptile -> mammal evolution, whatever. We've got a pretty extensive list of transitionals, but yes, when you get an extremely finely resolved portrait of evolution the links look largely alike. This is a prediction of evolution, not a wrench for it to deal with. Even in these finely resolved series though, we can see large scale changes.

eg

to

There are 300 different breeds of dogs and range in size from 3lbs to 300lbs. They are all related. They all have a common ancestor. Assuming they came from a wolf (I do), go back at least 1.7MY. One can take an ancient wolf skeleton and a modern yorkie skeleton and create a chain of evolution between the two. But that's NOT the evolution I'm talking about. I call that variation.

You're making up your own definitions and demanding that evolution fit your preconceptions. What generates variation? Mutation. What determines which mutations are passed down? Natural (or artificial) selection.

What the OP pointed out was that there does not exist a coherent transitional fossil set between creature A and creature B, yet every creature in existance or to have ever existed was once a very different creature.

What do you mean by creature A to creature B? A new species? This is unclear terminology. Every creature in existence was not once another creature because every creature in existence is an individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Out of the millions of animals exhibiting unique features, we should reasonably expect to find the proverbial short-neck to long-neck progression regardless of your personal worldview.

There is no proverb about short and long necks, what are you even talking about? What sort of change are you looking for here? You apparently have a very specific idea, but you have not yet made that idea clear.

 

[Naraoia]

Showing a variety of hominid skulls, a variety of horses, or a variety of whales isn't any different than showing a variety of dog skeletons. There are 300 different breeds of dogs and range in size from 3lbs to 300lbs. They are all related. They all have a common ancestor. Assuming they came from a wolf (I do), go back at least 1.7MY. One can take an ancient wolf skeleton and a modern yorkie skeleton and create a chain of evolution between the two. But that's NOT the evolution I'm talking about. I call that variation.

So wait, showing you a variety of dogs that are so morphologically distinct that if we didn't know better we'd probably classify them in several different genera is not evolution enough, but a few proto-giraffes with different neck lengths would be? Frankly, I'm not sure you understand your own question here...

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure the hominid lineup counts. It's just not very convincing.

Then what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

I'm looking for something more convincing.

Somehow, I doubt that.

 

[Loudmouth]

When transitional fossils were not found (by that I mean from a short neck to a long neck, not a dog to a dog or a hominid to a human), science then decided that 'punctuated equilibrium' must be the reason why there are no fossils.

It is bad enough that creationists are ignorant of the science that has been done. It is even worse when creationists distort science like you did above.

Punk Eek was a conclusion drawn from fossils that WERE FOUND. Let me state that again. Punctuated Equilibria is a mechanism based on fossils that WERE FOUND. Do I need to repeat it again? If you had read anything on the subject from real scientific sources, like Gould and Eldredge themselves, you would already know this. Sadly, you think reading creationist sources is a good way to learn science. It isn't.

For example, Gould and Eldredge pointed to a group of bivalves that were OBSERVED to speciate in different but nearby areas. Then, suddenly, one of the new species replaced another species. If you had dug down through the sediments in this area you would see the "sudden appearance" of a new species. However, they were able to show that this sudden appearance was due to replacement by a species that evolved in a different place. Punctuated Equilibrium is based on positive evidence, not negative evidence as you are trying to claim.

There are giant gaps in the fossil record and the theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't help that fact.

Given the tiny percentage of the fossil record that we have searched we should expect to see such gaps. What percentage of the fossil record do you think we have searched? How many fossil digs have you personally seen in your area of the world? Have you ever seen a single scientist actively looking for fossils?

PE should produce more readily isolated fossil groups in concentration. In othe words, PE due to enviornmental isolation should result in smaller, yet a relatively concentrated group of transitional fossils consisting of an A to B progression.

The trick is finding those areas, and hoping that it occurred in a place where fossils are easily produced.

Showing a variety of hominid skulls, a variety of horses, or a variety of whales isn't any different than showing a variety of dog skeletons. There are 300 different breeds of dogs and range in size from 3lbs to 300lbs. They are all related. They all have a common ancestor. Assuming they came from a wolf (I do), go back at least 1.7MY. One can take an ancient wolf skeleton and a modern yorkie skeleton and create a chain of evolution between the two. But that's NOT the evolution I'm talking about. I call that variation.

No, that is evolution. It is change over time. I'm sorry, but you can't make the evidence go away by redefining it.

What the OP pointed out was that there does not exist a coherent transitional fossil set between creature A and creature B,

That is until we find creature A.5, and then you will say that it is not evidence because we don't have creature A.25 that is between A and A.5. Sorry, but we already know this game. According to creationists, every new transitional fossil makes us less sure of evolution because each new fossil creates two new gaps.

Out of the millions of animals exhibiting unique features, we should reasonably expect to find the proverbial short-neck to long-neck progression regardless of your personal worldview.

Have we searched every fossil bearing strata from that time period?