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.