Gaps in the fossil record debunks evolution

[TeddyReceptus]

Interesting that you would say this.

Just today (on PBS) Dawkins revealed that two notable things are still a mystery to science; how life began, and , how self-replicating cells work. He went on to say that these two unknowns are the foundation of all evolutionary biology.

Does the TOE have 'feet of clay'?

Evolution works quite well distinct and apart from the origin of life. This is akin to saying that you can't possibly understand how the car engine works unless you know every aspect of how the car was manufactured.

Evolution is descent with modification. It starts with life and winds up with life and only cares how the life changes in the various steps between A and Z.

I don't know what Dawkins was talking about here since abiogenesis or theories of life's origins don't really read on how evolution proceeds.

The origins of life would be fantastic to know. But we know an awful lot about the chemical processes that run life. You can get an entire BS, MS and PhD in biochemistry and you can understand a huge amount about how life functions without being able to tell us how it got here. Does that mean that biochemistry has "feet of clay"?

No.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

the main evidence is the fact how the "darkness" induces unfavorable aging to the: humans, animals, plants, and many materials, you know how the purchased fruits and vegetables decay, how many materials decompose, for example, how the paper becomes yellow and after hundreds of years brown, etc., in the Bible this phenomenon is called "death"

Blessings

Just as an aside "paper becomes yellow" isn't really death. It's due to the oxidation of lignin, a component of wood.

When you have a paper made up of "mechanical pulp" (it was mechanically ground from wood) it often contains much more lignin than a chemical pulp with was made from the chemical treatment of wood which removes much more of the lignin.

Just an fyi.

 

[RickG]

Life has always existed. Physical bodies were manifested.

Nice "quote mine". I was speaking specifically about life on earth. And do you have any idea what the actual definition of "manifested" is? Try keeping things in context and keep the conversation open and above the table.

 

[toLiJC]

You failed to answer the question. How is this evidence of Satan Falsely aging matter?

Define "darkness" and how it induces unfavorable aging and how it is an action attributed to the hand of Satan.

Then Explain how Natural Bio-decay causes an the inability to properly date matter.

the "darkness" per se is the negative side of the divine/divinity, and it appears in such forms as: "satan", "beast", "second beast", "death", "hell", "evil spirits", etc., the "death" is the spirit of decline, very soon all appearances of (the) "darkness" will be removed and locked to the end of (the) eternity by the so called structure "lake of fire"

Revelation 19:20 "the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.",

Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are",

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire."

Blessings

 

[toLiJC]

Just as an aside "paper becomes yellow" isn't really death. It's due to the oxidation of lignin, a component of wood.

When you have a paper made up of "mechanical pulp" (it was mechanically ground from wood) it often contains much more lignin than a chemical pulp with was made from the chemical treatment of wood which removes much more of the lignin.

Just an fyi.

i meant the rot of paper and other materials as a whole

Blessings

 

[DrkSdBls]

the "darkness" per se is the negative side of the divine/divinity, and it appears in such forms as: "satan", "beast", "second beast", "death", "hell", "evil spirits", etc., the "death" is the spirit of decline, very soon all appearances of (the) "darkness" will be removed and locked to the end of (the) eternity by the so called structure "lake of fire"

Now provide Evidence for Said "Darkness," then explain how it induces unfavorable aging, how it is an action attributed to the hand of Satan and Explain how Natural Bio-decay causes an the inability to properly date matter.

 

[rush1169]

Are there any modern animals that science knows with certainty what it was before it evolved into what it is? Are there any extinct animals that science knows with certainty what it evolved from before it became the extinct animal?

"Certainty" is a difficult word, though. How much certainty do you have in mind? Absolute certainty we'll always be unable to provide by the nature of science. The best we can say that something is beyond reasonable doubt (e.g. birds come from dinosaurs, anomalocaridids are related to arthropods). Unless you're looking at exceptionally detailed and complete records, the "certain" claims will usually be at a higher level than species, because direct ancestor-descendant relationships are incredibly difficult to establish based on a patchy fossil record. E.g. we can say with a fair amount of certainty that humans descended from some sort of australopithecine, but it's much more difficult to tell exactly which of the many australopith species begat whom.

I just figured that with the amount of research taking place, the millions of living creatures available, and DNA analysis that science would be able to show using empirical evidence Creature A having evolved into Creature B.

When I refer to creatures A and B, I'm not talking about a white bird evolving into a black bird. There was a time when a giraffe, for example, did not exist. So, some animal that was not a giraffe eventually turned into a giraffe. In fact, we have millions of living animals among us that used to be a completely different animal. By 'different', I mean obviously, physically different. Staying with the giraffe because of it's neck, there should be a progression of some creature evolving a progressively long neck (and all the associated internal modifications needed to support that neck). There need not be an infinite progression demonstrated, but maybe a dozen examples taken from progressively deep layers (for example, at 100MY intervals). I don't think such a demostration exists specifically for a giraffe, but is there one for any Creature A to B evolution?

I assume your post about a wild dog 'evolving' into a domesticated dog and the wild cow evolving into a domesticated cow was tounge-in-cheek?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution works quite well distinct and apart from the origin of life. This is akin to saying that you can't possibly understand how the car engine works unless you know every aspect of how the car was manufactured.

Evolution is descent with modification. It starts with life and winds up with life and only cares how the life changes in the various steps between A and Z.

I don't know what Dawkins was talking about here since abiogenesis or theories of life's origins don't really read on how evolution proceeds.

The origins of life would be fantastic to know. But we know an awful lot about the chemical processes that run life. You can get an entire BS, MS and PhD in biochemistry and you can understand a huge amount about how life functions without being able to tell us how it got here. Does that mean that biochemistry has "feet of clay"?

No.

Thank you for a polite and reasoned response. I'm beginning to understand where science is coming from regarding evolution, although I still don't believe anything changes without God's direction. I'm good with it as long as the miracle of life itself is held separate and distinct from the theory. I also take issue with some who try to credit evolution with the non-physical components of the mind (thought, emotion, etc.).

 

[toLiJC]

Now provide Evidence for Said "Darkness," then explain how it induces unfavorable aging, how it is an action attributed to the hand of Satan and Explain how Natural Bio-decay causes an the inability to properly date matter.

only God knows all about the unfavorable aging/disintegration, compared with Him i know nothing, however the decay may cause e.g. a loss of food resources which may be a cause of food shortages


Blessings

 

[The Engineer]

only God knows all about the unfavorable aging/disintegration, compared with Him i know nothing, however the decay may cause e.g. a loss of food resources which may be a cause of food shortages

In short, you can't provide evidence for your claims.

 

[DrkSdBls]

only God knows all about the unfavorable aging/disintegration, compared with Him i know nothing, however the decay may cause e.g. a loss of food resources which may be a cause of food shortages


Blessings

God will always know more then we do. All that we can know is what we can learn for ourselves. All that we can be Sure of is what we discover for our selves. Everything else is supposition.

Now, I have nothing against Belief. I will never talk down to Faith. But I believe that we must have faith in our "God-given" gift to be able to analyze our world and learn from it as though IT is the "Rosetta Stone" to understanding God's work. You can not have Faith in God and also believe that so much of his works are so easily distorted for the purpose to deceive. To do so would to call into question everything on which one's faith is based.

This is why I have Faith in what we have learned about our world to be true. Much of it is still Cloaked in darkness; true Darkness, Darkness of Antiquity and of Ignorance, but nothing will convince me that so much of it is designed to be Lies and Deceptions.

 

[Naraoia]

I just figured that with the amount of research taking place, the millions of living creatures available, and DNA analysis that science would be able to show using empirical evidence Creature A having evolved into Creature B.

I was careful to point out that this is incredibly difficult to do when all you have from A or both is fossils. Heck, look at the case of Triceratops/Torosaurus and all the various tyrannosaurs that were proposed to be young T. rex. Despite the fact that we're speaking of very well-known animals as far as fossil vertebrates go, it's still uncertain whether different specimens even belong to the same species. Evidence isn't always straightforward to interpret, no matter how much of it you have.

As I said, if "creature A" and "creature B" represent higher-level taxonomic groups, the situation is quite different... (And I think many of us here could immediately point you to examples like that, some of the most famous being the origin of modern horses, whales and mammals as a whole.)

When I refer to creatures A and B, I'm not talking about a white bird evolving into a black bird. There was a time when a giraffe, for example, did not exist. So, some animal that was not a giraffe eventually turned into a giraffe.

Pretty sure the Wikipedia article mentioned where giraffes came from... *checks* Aham, totally did. Quoting with emphasis:

Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.

(Here, this is ref. 9. It looks like it's exactly what you're looking for.)

In fact, we have millions of living animals among us that used to be a completely different animal. By 'different', I mean obviously, physically different. Staying with the giraffe because of it's neck, there should be a progression of some creature evolving a progressively long neck (and all the associated internal modifications needed to support that neck). There need not be an infinite progression demonstrated, but maybe a dozen examples taken from progressively deep layers (for example, at 100MY intervals).

Judging from the above, giraffes of any neck length have only been around for a few million years

I don't think such a demostration exists specifically for a giraffe, but is there one for any Creature A to B evolution?

I put links in my posts for a reason

I'm still not entirely sure what you're looking for, though. Would something like the picture below count? This is Carl Buell's beautiful illustration of the origin of mammals from the book I linked to earlier (there's also this one a few pages later showing skulls and jaws rather than life restorations). The beasts he depicts are not known to be direct ancestors/descendants of each other (in fact, chances are they weren't), but they are thought to represent the "reptile"-mammal transition pretty well:

(According to the caption, the animals are Ophiacodon, Dimetrodon, an unnamed gorgonopsian, Thrinaxodon and an unnamed early mammal, some of which are discussed here, in case you want to look them up.)

Do series like this satisfy your criteria, or does it have to be Species A begat Species B begat Species C...?

I assume your post about a wild dog 'evolving' into a domesticated dog and the wild cow evolving into a domesticated cow was tounge-in-cheek?

Well, only half. After all, we really do know which species dogs and cows come from.

 

[rush1169]

I was careful to point out that this is incredibly difficult to do when all you have from A or both is fossils. Heck, look at the case of Triceratops/Torosaurus and all the various tyrannosaurs that were proposed to be young T. rex. Despite the fact that we're speaking of very well-known animals as far as fossil vertebrates go, it's still uncertain whether different specimens even belong to the same species. Evidence isn't always straightforward to interpret, no matter how much of it you have.

That's what I find puzzling about ToE. Initially the ToE was all about the fossil evidence, then DNA analysis came along and that is touted as what gives certainty that the ToE is what actually happened. Without God, life had to have sprung into existance and it had to morph into all of life. In other words, absent a creator, we must put together this puzzle-of-life using those rules (ie life started simply and evolved).

So, I guess what I'm looking for is science to have dropped the 'evolution must have happened' rule and show some evidence of an actual instance - somewhat complete with fossils and, even better, with DNA. All the explanations/demonstrations of evolution begin with the assumption that evolution happened and then go on to tell me that dinosaurs turned into birds. I was told that DNA is a 'non-starter' due to it's lack of preservation, but then someone else told me that DNA is what makes evolution a certainty.

One poster said every creature is a transitional creature. There has *got* to be, among the billions of creatures that have ever walked the earth, a progression of Creature A to Creature B. No?

As I said, if "creature A" and "creature B" represent higher-level taxonomic groups, the situation is quite different... (And I think many of us here could immediately point you to examples like that, some of the most famous being the origin of modern horses, whales and mammals as a whole.)

Acknowledged.

Pretty sure the Wikipedia article mentioned where giraffes came from... *checks* Aham, totally did. Quoting with emphasisHere, this is ref. 9. It looks like it's exactly what you're looking for.)

I don't want you to think I didn't read your links (thank you for providing them), but they don't answer my question. Even that 23 page document starts off "The. . .evolution of giraffes. . .is obscure. . . .the proximate ancestors of modern giraffes probably evolved in southern central Europe about 8 million years ago (Mya)."

Judging from the above, giraffes of any neck length have only been around for a few million years

I put links in my posts for a reason

Thank you. But, I'm looking for giraffes of progressively longer necks.

I'm still not entirely sure what you're looking for, though.

When scientists say that a giraffe evolved from <X>, I want to know what <X> was exactly along with a progression of fossils (the best we have, not perfect). It's not very convincing, to me, to say a Giraffokeryx evolved into a giraffe because evolution happened and the Giraffokeryx seems like it was the best candidate to have evolved into a giraffe. We should have a Giraffokeryx fossil and a 1/2 dozen intermediate fossils that lead to a giraffe. Not artists interpretations. Again, not necessarily a giraffe, but *any* evolution demonstration from A to B. There should be many.

Would something like the picture below count?

No. Artists interpretations don't count

Well, only half. After all, we really do know which species dogs and cows come from.

Yes, I guess we do know that a tame dog came from a wild dog. That's not the extent of evolution I'm looking for

 

[The Engineer]

That's what I find puzzling about ToE. Initially the ToE was all about the fossil evidence, then DNA analysis came along and that is touted as what gives certainty that the ToE is what actually happened.

You find it funny that DNA analysis verified a theory that was originally supported by fossil evidence? I don't see what's so weird about that.

Without God, life had to have sprung into existance and it had to morph into all of life.

True.

In other words, absent a creator, we must put together this puzzle-of-life using those rules (ie life started simply and evolved).

So, I guess what I'm looking for is science to have dropped the 'evolution must have happened' rule and show some evidence of an actual instance - somewhat complete with fossils and, even better, with DNA.

Guess the line of hominid fossils doesn't count, for whatever reason.

All the explanations/demonstrations of evolution begin with the assumption that evolution happened

I don't see what's wrong with that.

and then go on to tell me that dinosaurs turned into birds.

That's because we have evidence for this, and because it's a great example of a prediction being verified. As far as I know, Archaeopteryx wasn't discovered until after this prediction has been made.

I was told that DNA is a 'non-starter' due to it's lack of preservation, but then someone else told me that DNA is what makes evolution a certainty.

That's not a contradiction, at all. The ToE suggested, among other things, that traits are inherited, and DNA analysis verified this, big time.

One poster said every creature is a transitional creature. There has *got* to be, among the billions of creatures that have ever walked the earth, a progression of Creature A to Creature B. No?

And hominids don't count why?

 

[rush1169]

Guess the line of hominid fossils doesn't count, for whatever reason.
And hominids don't count why?

Sure the hominid lineup counts. It's just not very convincing. When I think of the hominid lineup, I think something along these lines. To me, that picture is not unlike starting with a picture of a old wolf skeleton on one end and a german shepard on the other end and some other dog skeletons in between and declaring that as my best evidence for evolution (from a single-cell to everything alive). I'm looking for something more convincing.

To get to a 7 foot long neck, as in a graffe, there must have been 6.5' long necked giraffes for millions of years, 6' long necks prior, 5.5' long necks, 5' long necks, 4.5', 4', 3.5', 3', 2.5', 2', etc all for very long periods. See the difference between this example and that of hominids? Not only the neck growth, but giraffes are pretty darn tall even without their neck. Not only are they tall and have a long neck, but there are specific internal systems needed to operate an animal of such stature (although I realize evolution of the internal soft-tissue support systems cannot be demonstrated, but the skeletal can or should be demonstrable).

So, yeah, the hominid lineup counts but contributes very little to the goo-to-you argument.

 

[Jro]

To get to a 7 foot long neck, as in a graffe, there must have been 6.5' long necked giraffes for millions of years, 6' long necks prior, 5.5' long necks, 5' long necks, 4.5', 4', 3.5', 3', 2.5', 2', etc all for very long periods.

That isn't true; genes can have larger effects than just 6" at a time. Much research has been done on so called 'body-building' genes that coordinate the development of embryos.

See the difference between this example and that of hominids? Not only the neck growth, but giraffes are pretty darn tall even without their neck. Not only are they tall and have a long neck, but there are specific internal systems needed to operate an animal of such stature (although I realize evolution of the internal soft-tissue support systems cannot be demonstrated, but the skeletal can or should be demonstrable).

I don't understand the difference, no. In the hominid lineage you see the enlargement of the cranium and a corresponding support system.

So, yeah, the hominid lineup counts but contributes very little to the goo-to-you argument.

See, if you want something sufficiently resolved that you can easily see the a->b evolution, you're going to wind up with a minor changes between taxa. If you're looking for 'goo-to-you' (I don't know what you mean by this, but presumably evolution from bacterial mats to vertebrates), you're going to wind up with a spotty record simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many intermediaries and it is such a vast time scale and fossilization is so rare. I don't quite understand what you're looking for here, so if you could articulate it further that might help.

 

[rush1169]

That isn't true; genes can have larger effects than just 6" at a time. Much research has been done on so called 'body-building' genes that coordinate the development of embryos.

So you think a giraffe, more-or-less, was born of a short-necked creature? My 6" spread was an example. If it actually were 1' leaps or 1" leaps, it doesn't change the request. If you think it went from 1' to 7' in one generation with no progression, that's fine. You didn't say that, but did imply that.

I don't understand the difference, no. In the hominid lineage you see the enlargement of the cranium and a corresponding support system.

You don't understand the difference between a progression from a 1' neck to a 7' neck and a progression from an old hominid skull to a modern hominid skull? Or the difference between a 1' neck to 7' neck and a wolf skeleton to a dog skeleton? Are you just being coy?

See, if you want something sufficiently resolved that you can easily see the a->b evolution, you're going to wind up with a minor changes between taxa.

That's what I thought anyway. But above you implied that the giraffe neck went from short to long in one leap.

If you're looking for 'goo-to-you' (I don't know what you mean by this, but presumably evolution from bacterial mats to vertebrates),

Of course that's what I mean.

you're going to wind up with a spotty record simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many intermediaries and it is such a vast time scale and fossilization is so rare.

I'm cool with a spotty record, just looking for the best example. Out of the countless number of creatures, from an oak tree to a giraffe to a T-Rex to a bumble bee to a venus fly trap to a catfish to a mushroom. Every one was something else before it became what it was, every one of them morphed from whatever the first life was, every one of them is directly related. We have found billions of fossils, so I would expect to see at least a few examples of progressive, significant morphological changes from Creature A to Creature B without skipping from a 1' neck to a 7' neck or from a tree lizard to a T-Rex or from a flower to a flower that looks and smells like a specific girl bee.

I'm not dense as to what the ToE claims to have happened. The giraffe evolved from something else that didn't have a long neck. Now show me that progression.

I don't quite understand what you're looking for here, so if you could articulate it further that might help.

Vat are you talking about?

 

[Naraoia]

That's what I find puzzling about ToE. Initially the ToE was all about the fossil evidence,

No, not all and not even nearly. I really recommend reading Darwin's Origin - there is a lot more to even his theory of evolution than fossils. Off the top of my head: (comparative) embryology, the nested hierarchy of life (which was known long before DNA), biogeography and change under artificial selection all contributed to his conclusions.

then DNA analysis came along and that is touted as what gives certainty that the ToE is what actually happened.

OK, you have to understand exactly why that is.

Most importantly, comparative analysis of DNA provides independent evidence for common descent.

That is, it confirms that life has a "natural" classification that's a nested hierarchy, i.e. groups within groups within groups, with no overlaps for the most part (at least when we're talking about organisms that don't engage in a lot of gene swapping). And in many cases phenotypic traits and DNA (or protein) data give very similar or even identical nested hierarchies.

It may seem like a small coincidence, but the fact that, say, birds or mammals or molluscs are recovered as "natural" groups in both kinds of analysis is anything but - especially if you consider that you can take many different genes within a genome and get the same result. There's nothing to say that similar creatures must have similar gene sequences or gene contents, not to mention things like ERVs that AFAIK don't have individual functions in most cases, even if they play a role in a cell's life as "stuff that can mess with genes". The bottom line is that by and large, DNA evidence is independent of phenotypic evidence, and different DNA elements are often independent of each other. (Coevolution between genes does exist and can be a problem for gene classification)

There are millions of living species on earth. If they hadn't been generated in a systematic way, there would be an astronomical number of possible classifications for them. Yet all of these independent lines of evidence classify them in eerily similar ways, and they all point to the only pattern that "classical" branching evolution can produce: a nested hierarchy (a.k.a a tree).

(Here's the relevant TalkOrigins FAQ that attempts to put numbers on the strength of the evidence. Long story short: even with all the uncertainty about the details, our estimate of the tree of life is still among the most precise measurements humanity has ever made. I think it actually helps you to think about estimating phylogeny as just another measurement, because it stops you from having unrealistic expectations. No measurement is 100% accurate and precise, so we can't reasonably expect all estimates of a phylogeny to agree 100%. Yeah, I had to read a TalkOrigins FAQ to realise that, even though I've been interested in phylogenies for years :o)

Without God, life had to have sprung into existance and it had to morph into all of life. In other words, absent a creator, we must put together this puzzle-of-life using those rules (ie life started simply and evolved).

Yep. And fossil and DNA evidence alike suggests that life did start simply, although neither can really trace it back to its very beginning.

So, I guess what I'm looking for is science to have dropped the 'evolution must have happened' rule and show some evidence of an actual instance - somewhat complete with fossils and, even better, with DNA. All the explanations/demonstrations of evolution begin with the assumption that evolution happened and then go on to tell me that dinosaurs turned into birds. I was told that DNA is a 'non-starter' due to it's lack of preservation, but then someone else told me that DNA is what makes evolution a certainty.

See above - DNA is primarily evidence for common ancestry, not for the individual steps that connect ancestors and descendants. Mind you, it can provide that sort of evidence if you know how to look. Here's an example about the evolution of a Hox gene in mammals that probably contributed to the origin of long pregnancies - in other words, the genesis of placental mammals.

I don't want you to think I didn't read your links (thank you for providing them), but they don't answer my question.

Then I'm not sure what your question is

When scientists say that a giraffe evolved from <X>, I want to know what <X> was exactly along with a progression of fossils (the best we have, not perfect). It's not very convincing, to me, to say a Giraffokeryx evolved into a giraffe because evolution happened and the Giraffokeryx seems like it was the best candidate to have evolved into a giraffe. We should have a Giraffokeryx fossil and a 1/2 dozen intermediate fossils that lead to a giraffe. Not artists interpretations. Again, not necessarily a giraffe, but *any* evolution demonstration from A to B. There should be many.

No. Artists interpretations don't count

Now I hope that was a joke As I said, there are actual skulls and jaws a few pages later (see link). The origin of mammals is also a pretty well-known transition, so you can easily find more resources about it.

The drawing is supposed to represent a transitional series that includes progressively more B-like creatures, but not necessarily the complete and direct line of descent between A (say, an early amniote) and B (say, a full-fledged mammal). I have to admit that I like it as a piece of art, which is why I posted it and not a bunch of boring bones

Yes, I guess we do know that a tame dog came from a wild dog. That's not the extent of evolution I'm looking for

Then you are not going to find a detailed breakdown in the fossil record. It's simply the nature of the record, and quite possibly the nature of species to species transitions itself. It's practically impossible to follow a lineage for hundreds of millions of years in that sort of detail. The number of fossilised specimens, the completeness and time resolution of the strata they're preserved in, the geographical location of successive transitions etc. all must come together in a lucky combination you're terribly unlikely to get.

That said, I have a hunch that ammonites might be worth checking out. Not an expert on them, but I know they're highly fossilisable, very abundant and well-studied and were around for a fair length of time. Of course, by the end of it they're "still just ammonites"...

See, if you want something sufficiently resolved that you can easily see the a->b evolution, you're going to wind up with a minor changes between taxa. If you're looking for 'goo-to-you' (I don't know what you mean by this, but presumably evolution from bacterial mats to vertebrates), you're going to wind up with a spotty record simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many intermediaries and it is such a vast time scale and fossilization is so rare. I don't quite understand what you're looking for here, so if you could articulate it further that might help.

Thank you. Exactly that.

 

[Jro]

So you think a giraffe, more-or-less, was born of a short-necked creature? My 6" spread was an example. If it actually were 1' leaps or 1" leaps, it doesn't change the request. If you think it went from 1' to 7' in one generation with no progression, that's fine. You didn't say that, but did imply that.

Not sure if it occurred in one generation or many, but your portrayal of morphological evolution as being a gradual elongation is not necessarily accurate.

You don't understand the difference between a progression from a 1' neck to a 7' neck and a progression from an old hominid skull to a modern hominid skull? Or the difference between a 1' neck to 7' neck and a wolf skeleton to a dog skeleton? Are you just being coy?

Not trying to be coy at all - I don't understand what seeing a gradual transition from a giraffe neck would indicate about evolution that a gradual modification of the hominid skull and brain. Why do you think those are different?

That's what I thought anyway. But above you implied that the giraffe neck went from short to long in one leap.

Not implying that at all, just saying that the mechanics governing morphological evolution and embryonic development are not as simple as "gets a little bigger with each generation."

I'm cool with a spotty record, just looking for the best example. Out of the countless number of creatures, from an oak tree to a giraffe to a T-Rex to a bumble bee to a venus fly trap to a catfish to a mushroom. Every one was something else before it became what it was, every one of them morphed from whatever the first life was, every one of them is directly related.

I think you need to articulate how large a transition you're looking for, and what exactly you think a transitional fossil would be. Transitional forms will be fully functional creatures in their own right.

We have found billions of fossils, so I would expect to see at least a few examples of progressive, significant morphological changes from Creature A to Creature B without skipping from a 1' neck to a 7' neck or from a tree lizard to a T-Rex or from a flower to a flower that looks and smells like a specific girl bee.

What do you mean by creature A to creature B? How significant of a change are you looking for? What sort of change are you looking for? The Hominid evolution shows the development and morphological change from species to species. So do remains from horses and whales for example. I understand that these examples are not satisfying to you, but you haven't clearly said why.

 

[Jro]

That said, I have a hunch that ammonites might be worth checking out. Not an expert on them, but I know they're highly fossilisable, very abundant and well-studied and were around for a fair length of time. Of course, by the end of it they're "still just ammonites"...

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

This is a pretty interesting paper. I haven't heard of anything with ammonites, but I've heard of some work being done on diatoms, which may also be a good candidate.