Intermediate fossils

[Wiccan_Child]

I have no doubt that evolution is possible, but do i think that we came from a monkey...or some lower species. Definatly not.

To show me a change in species itself (size/color) wont convince me... as shown by your links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png
Im not looking for a explanation for how its possible, as it is...but i am looking for proof, fossils , that it did actually happen.

Who needs fossils when the following speciation events have been observed (some or all in the lab)?:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Tragopogon

Raphanobrassica

Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

Madia citrigracilis

Brassica

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles.

Stephanomeira malheurensis

Maize (Zea mays)

Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

Fruit Fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

monkey body parts + human body parts (without seperations).
stages before a monkey would also be intresting

How about a series of skulls that illustrate a rather smooth change from the near-human to the human:

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

See also: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

was hoping for somthing more to do with arms/ legs (feet)
and if you provide proof...is there lots of it?

some people, even today, are born deformed remember :S

With tails, remember? This is not a spontaneously generated limb, but a throwback to previous generations (and, indeed, species).

according to evolution, if a mutation is beneficial...the new type of species will out-live others of its previous type. Therfore many bones should be present.

How so? I fail to see the connection between your two statements.

theres so many possibilities to why, or why it could be true...guess thats why its still called a theory :S

No. Just... no.

 

[pyro214]

No - that is most definitely NOT why it is called a theory.

then why is it still called a theory?

How so? I fail to see the connection between your two statements.

what dont you get :S
mutations didnt happen on a daily bases, apparently it was a series of mutations of a period of billions of years. This means that many bones/fossils of each stage would be delivered from each intermediate stage (some more then others...depends on the necessity for a mutation at the time).

How about a series of skulls that illustrate a rather smooth change from the near-human to the human:

how come theres lots of peices missing to some parts, and yet again i wounder how we can tell if those are just a bunch of differnt types of monkey at the time. If we can view a full body then we can look more closley at how the stages progressed and the mutations that took place.

With tails, remember? This is not a spontaneously generated limb, but a throwback to previous generations (and, indeed, species).

another reason why it would be good to see intermediate stages of the tail possibly getting shorter and shorter. actually i dont understand why not having a tail would be beneficial, it helps with balance and can be used for a variety of tasks. The limb at the bottom of the spinal cord is used for sexual functions by the way

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My first experience with internet debates was a really great board about 8-9 years ago associated with a page called the Lucy Test. There were pictures of various bones from Lucy, from a Chimp and a Human and then some way of grading (that is some way of tallying your grade) to see which looked more alike. Some of Lucy's skeletal features were more like human than chimp and some were more like chimp than human.

As an aside I also ran into a couple of famous internet C/E debate characters including Gallo, Fairytale Fred Williams and at least one person that I think is still posting on this board. Does anyone else remember the Lucy Test?

F.B.

 

[Valkhorn]

then why is it still called a theory?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

 

[flatworm]

then why is it still called a theory?

Because in science, a theory is a model, well-supported by the evidence, that explains and unifies a large and diverse body of observations (i.e. facts).

A theory in the scientific sense is not merely a claim lacking enough evidence to be called a fact.

The germ theory of disease is still a theory, not because we doubt the existence of disease-causing microbes, but because it ties together all our observations about micro-organisms and disease.

The theory of gravity is still a theory, not because we doubt that things fall, but because it's a model that unifies things like weight and the orbits of planets into a single framework.

Similarly, the theory of evolution is a theory not because it's in doubt but because it unifies observed facts of genetics, paleontology, speciation, biogeography and morphology into a single framework.

 

[pyro214]

thanks flatworm/ Valkhorn for the explanation Valkhorn

My first experience with internet debates was a really great board about 8-9 years ago associated with a page called the Lucy Test. There were pictures of various bones from Lucy, from a Chimp and a Human and then some way of grading (that is some way of tallying your grade) to see which looked more alike. Some of Lucy's skeletal features were more like human than chimp and some were more like chimp than human.

As an aside I also ran into a couple of famous internet C/E debate characters including Gallo, Fairytale Fred Williams and at least one person that I think is still posting on this board. Does anyone else remember the Lucy Test?

F.B.

wasnt lucy apparently a fake...or lucys child (my enlgish teacher mentioned one of the two). I tried looking her up and its somthing thats discussed but not confirmed.

 

[USincognito]

1was hoping for somthing more to do with arms/ legs (feet)
and if you provide proof...is there lots of it?

some people, even today, are born deformed remember :S

2according to evolution, if a mutation is beneficial...the new type of species will out-live others of its previous type. Therfore many bones should be present.

3and how can we tell its not just a type of ape that died off a while ago?

1. It has arms and legs, that's what I meant when I said "body". He is missing hands and feet though.

2. Just one example that isn't explained by deformaties is sufficient. And none of the hominid tranistionals are explained by deformaties.

3. Because non-human ape foramen magnums (the hole at the base of your skull that your spinal cord extends through) are at the dorsal, while in humans it's at the posterior.

Enjoy...

 

[flatworm]

wasnt lucy apparently a fake...or lucys child (my enlgish teacher mentioned one of the two).

No and no. The probable source of confusion (assuming honest confusion, and not deliberate misrepresentation by anti-evolutionists) is that the so-called Lucy's Baby skeleton is certainly no descendant of the specimen we call Lucy. That's just a nickname it got because it's a juvenile example of the same species and was found near the same site. None of the scientific literature claims this fossil to be the remains of one of Lucy's actual offspring.

You might also be talking about the Homo floresiensis fossils, the so-called Hobbit Man. There is a controversy within the scientific community as to whether these remains represent a new hominid species or simply individuals with certain medical conditions. It is not fakery, but a true and honest debate among scientists.

 

[Skaloop]

I have no doubt that evolution is possible, but do i think that we came from a monkey...or some lower species. Definatly not.

To show me a change in species itself (size/color) wont convince me... as shown by your links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png
Im not looking for a explanation for how its possible, as it is...but i am looking for proof, fossils , that it did actually happen.

In the post I responded to, you said that change at the species level (what you called macroevolution) is all that would convince you. I offered several examples of observed, real-life actual instances of speciation events. That it actually did happen is not in question; it did. The evidence is even more substantial than mere fossils, because it happened under direct observation.

So I ask you again: Your criteria for being convinced of macroevolution is speciation. I have offered you undenable instances of speciation, both natural and man-made. Are you convinced?

Or are you just going to move the goalposts again?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

then why is it still called a theory?

Because, like the Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory, it is unproven. It is an unproven explanation of how Evolution works.

what dont you get :S
mutations didnt happen on a daily bases, apparently it was a series of mutations of a period of billions of years. This means that many bones/fossils of each stage would be delivered from each intermediate stage (some more then others...depends on the necessity for a mutation at the time).

You said that, because there are mutations, then there should be lots of fossils. Fossilisation rates are unrelated to mutation rates.
The fact of the matter is, every offspring, every ancester between me and the protoprimate, is a transitional fossil. Are you really asking for all of their bones?

how come theres lots of peices missing to some parts,

They are old bones. They were buried beneath the Earth, not kept in armoured safes.

and yet again i wounder how we can tell if those are just a bunch of differnt types of monkey at the time.

Because they are not monkey skulls! Monkey skulls look rather different.
The very fact that they show a smooth transition supports the hypothesis that they are related.

If we can view a full body then we can look more closley at how the stages progressed and the mutations that took place.

The image shows only the skulls, because the entire body would omit too much detail. Surely you can see what needs to be seen from the skulls?

another reason why it would be good to see intermediate stages of the tail possibly getting shorter and shorter. actually i dont understand why not having a tail would be beneficial, it helps with balance and can be used for a variety of tasks.

It is useful for crouching apes who live in trees. As we developed into erect apes, ours tails diminished accordingly: we no longer need the extra balance, and indeed they were likely too much of a counter-balance. We walk fine now, but think how redundant and cumbersome a tail would be?

The limb at the bottom of the spinal cord is used for sexual functions by the way

How do you establish this?
In any case, the point is that we had a tail, and it slowly atrophied. But human offspring occasionally sprout one again because the genes that code for the tail are still in the human genome, and occasionally are turned on again. It's original function is irrelevant.

 

[pyro214]

Fossilisation rates are unrelated to mutation rates.

"In DNA A has to go with T, and G has to go with C. The probability of getting a match is 1 out of 4. Already that is 25% chances that DNA could occur by itself.
Add 4 to that because you want to see what the chances of both combos´ occurring by chance are. 1 out of 8; about 12%. Now DNA has more than 1 million “rungs”.
It would be very favorable to evolution to just use 1 million rungs. 1 out of 8,000,000 chances evolution would occur; about 0.00001%. DNA could not occur by chance."

because the chances of evolution are so low, many deaths happen between each evolutionary stage. Each death provies the chance of bones/ fossils being produced/ passed onto what we see today. Sinec the rate of mutation is so low, many of each stage dies a numerous amount of times before a new/beneficial mutation takes place.

Monkey skulls look rather different.

im no monkey expect but those skulls look similar to a possilbe type of monkey at the time. Cant say it wasnt? :S

because the entire body would omit too much detail.

what? explain please

i agree with the possilbity of tails.

 

[pyro214]

I offered several examples of observed, real-life actual instances of speciation events. That it actually did happen is not in question; it did. The evidence is even more substantial than mere fossils, because it happened under direct observation.

im not going to read 20 pages to try find this evidence, i scanned it for visual evidence and saw only some bees....proving microevoltuioin.

please quote the text or post the image that proves evolution undoubtibly.


were somewhat starting to go around in circles with the same issue. a new issue id also like to talk about is when evolution first took place. Christians here on the forums beleive God created adam and eve through evolution, others beleive adam and eve were a more basic type of human that evolved to what we are today. Some people beleive that the Big bang is real and humans evolved from dust. what do you think is true?

 

[Skaloop]

im not going to read 20 pages to try find this evidence, i scanned it for visual evidence and saw only some bees....proving microevoltuioin.

Heaven forbid you exert any effort! But fine. From here (there are bunches more. This is just a start.)

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
​

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
​

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
​

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348




​

There. Both natural and artificial examples of speciation occuring through evolution. That's exactly what you asked for. I now await the inevitable moving of the goalposts.

were somewhat starting to go around in circles with the same issue. a new issue id also like to talk about is when evolution first took place. Christians here on the forums beleive God created adam and eve through evolution, others beleive adam and eve were a more basic type of human that evolved to what we are today. Some people beleive that the Big bang is real and humans evolved from dust. what do you think is true?

I don't think any of that is true. The first two obviously because they involve a god. The last one because (a) the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, and (b) nobody except ignorant Creationists suggest that we evolved from dust. The ToE certainly suggests no such thing.

But to answer your initial question, evolution first took place when the first imperfect replicators were subjected to selective pressure.

 

[pyro214]

Heaven forbid you exert any effort! But fine.

ill restate myself: ive already said that macroevoluiont is possible. The fact that it did/ when it started is what im looking for. People have given some proof that microevolution has happened. And a series of microevolution may result in macroevolution (some say). Although i still say humans never came from a peice of non-living material. So where did it all start?

I don't think any of that is true. The first two obviously because they involve a god.

do you have somthing better to share with us?

The last one because (a) the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution

never said it did, but evolution had to start somwhere....so they may be related in a way. What is the origin of life/matter?

nobody except ignorant Creationists suggest that we evolved from dust. The ToE certainly suggests no such thing.

people are intitled to there own opinions on how life started, doesnt mean its fact...
not sure why you say thats not true? :S

But to answer your initial question, evolution first took place when the first imperfect replicators were subjected to selective pressure.

how did non living materials become living materials?
where did these non living materials come from?

 

[tocis]

When i argue against evolution i usually state that there is no intermediate stages backing up evolution, even though evolutoin suggests there should be billions of them. Am i the only one that has yet to see a intermediate fossil?

Name one species, whether extinct or currently living, that's not transitional (what you seem to mean by "intermediate").

 

[pyro214]

Name one species, whether extinct or currently living, that's not transitional (what you seem to mean by "intermediate").

long story, its explained as you go through the post

 

[Skaloop]

never said it did, but evolution had to start somwhere....so they may be related in a way. What is the origin of life/matter?

Irrelevent to the topic of whether macroevolution happens, which is what started all of this.

how did non living materials become living materials?
where did these non living materials come from?

We don't know for sure. There are several proposed mechanisms. Non-living materials became living materials through basic organic chemistry billions of years ago. Chemical reactions formed molecules in the form of simple amino acids that were able to catalyze reactions to produce more of those molecules. From that moment on, natural selection drove evolutionary change.

The origins of non-living materials are again uncertain. Quantum singularities is one idea. But we don't know.

It doesn't matter to our discussion though. Things were pretty simple; you said you accepted microevolution but didn't accept macroevolution. You said you would need evidence of one species changing into another in order to satisfy you. I offered that evidence of speciation events. So do you now accept evolution? Remember, doing so in no way requires you to get rid of your idea of God, and has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or life on Earth. All it has to do with is whether one species can change into a different species, which, as evidenced, does happen.

 

[pyro214]

You said you would need evidence of one species changing into another in order to satisfy you. I offered that evidence of speciation events. So do you now accept evolution? Remember, doing so in no way requires you to get rid of your idea of God, and has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or life on Earth. All it has to do with is whether one species can change into a different species, which, as evidenced, does happen.

-if you define evolution as a series of mutaitons, natural selection, as well as a series of microevolution. Yes i beleive this has/ is still happening today.

-however i do not beleive that humans came from a differnt animal, and find it hard to beleive that humans came from monkeys. Im still unclear the origin of life itself, and the origin of humans. Have humans been around since the begining of time...maybe not looking exaclty the same?

-also, it would still be nice to see a picture of a ape hands/ feet on a human like body...no division between the monkey body part and human body part.

-as far as the origin of life/matter, this is even more intresting... i will start a topic soon unless one has already been made.

 

[Skaloop]

-if you define evolution as a series of mutaitons, natural selection, as well as a series of microevolution. Yes i beleive this has/ is still happening today.

Great!

-however i do not beleive that humans came from a differnt animal, and find it hard to beleive that humans came from monkeys.

But you just said you accepted a series of microevolutions. There is no barrier on the number of microevolutions. Hence, we have macroevolution (for which I have provided you with the necessary evidence). And macroevolution says that humans did come from an ancestor that was not human. Not monkeys, though. More of an ape of some sort.

Im still unclear the origin of life itself, and the origin of humans. Have humans been around since the begining of time...maybe not looking exaclty the same?

Not at all. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, looking pretty much as we do now. Life has been around for a few of billion years. The planet Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion. The universe itself has been around nearly 14 billion years. Since time is part of the universe, it has been around that long as well. As you can see, human history is but a blip in the history of the entire universe. Also note that there is billions of years to allow for evolution from the simple beginnings of life to the diversity we see today. Billions of years allows for billions of steps in microevolution. Billions of steps, guided by the forces of natural selection, can easily produce the complexity we see today.

also, it would still be nice to see a picture of a ape hands/ feet on a human like body...no division between the monkey body part and human body part.

That would be very interesting. However, it would also prove evolution to be wrong, because our ancestors were not half-man/half-monkey. ANd nobody is suggesting that they are. They did not have some human parts and some monkey parts. Our ancestors likely weren't like modern humans or monkeys. Rather, we share a common ancestor with modern apes. You and your cousin share a common ancestor in your grandparents. Are you half your grandmother and half yourself? No. Do your parents have your grandfathers' hands and feet on your body? No. Did you come from your cousin? No. So why do you expect such ridiculous things from evolution, which is really just tracing back farther in the lineage.

-as far as the origin of life/matter, this is even more intresting... i will start a topic soon unless one has already been made.

You should. There are several people in these parts with a much deeper knowledge than I in that area. I look forward to getting their insight as well, as I am rather new to the science of the origins of the universe,

 

[jwu]

"In DNA A has to go with T, and G has to go with C. The probability of getting a match is 1 out of 4. Already that is 25% chances that DNA could occur by itself.
Add 4 to that because you want to see what the chances of both combos´ occurring by chance are. 1 out of 8; about 12%. Now DNA has more than 1 million “rungs”.
It would be very favorable to evolution to just use 1 million rungs. 1 out of 8,000,000 chances evolution would occur; about 0.00001%. DNA could not occur by chance."

Note that the assignation of A to T and G to C is not random, it's governed by chemistry. They don't fit together in another way in first instance.
This doesn't have anything to do with mutation rates either by the way, it's rather an argument against abiogenesis.

because the chances of evolution are so low, many deaths happen between each evolutionary stage. Each death provies the chance of bones/ fossils being produced/ passed onto what we see today. Sinec the rate of mutation is so low, many of each stage dies a numerous amount of times before a new/beneficial mutation takes place.

E.g. every human has about 130 mutations. Most of them are neutral, others deleterious, others beneficial. And this still doesn't really relate to fossilization rates, which are rather influenced by the structure of the skeleton and the environment.