Intermediate fossils

[flatworm]

ill leave this for FoeHammer but just to summarize somthing on my mind:
theres 109 species of dogs, what makes you think there couldnt be a great number of differnt kinds of apes back then? that have now died off.

It would make more sense to claim that all these species were unrelated if they appeared at random times in the fossil record. They don't. They're pretty neatly ordered.

personally i think you can look at it either way, those can be considered as transitional fossils yet they can also be considered as differnt species of apes that lived at the time (all created by God).

They are different species of ape and they are transitional.

and there could/ maybe should be more transitional fossils then that?
its hard to say, i would expect a more smoother transition.

Where in the hominid series do you see a gap? Between Australophithecines and Homo habilis? The Dik-dik hominid fits right on the edge.

How about between Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus? The Dmanisi skulls fit right on the border between the two.

What about between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens? The Tautavel man fossil combines features of both.

So tell me, where is this gap you would like to see closed?

 

[pyro214]

It would make more sense to claim that all these species were unrelated if they appeared at random times in the fossil record. They don't. They're pretty neatly ordered.

if your talking chronologicly, i have yet to believe that dating methods at an extent of over 10k years is accurate (still researching specifics).
"make more sense" also leaves room for possible flaws, a few days after this topic was opened i was almost convinced that evolutoin took place....but now that i think about it, theres still alot of explanations of why it didnt exist. Not saying your wrong, but im not saying your right.

They are different species of ape and they are transitional.

i beleive God made those differnt species, and that they were originally created like that (no intermediate stage before it existed).
Cant say they are transitional as a fact?

Where in the hominid series do you see a gap? Between Australophithecines and Homo habilis? The Dik-dik hominid fits right on the edge.

How about between Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus? The Dmanisi skulls fit right on the border between the two.

What about between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens? The Tautavel man fossil combines features of both.

So tell me, where is this gap you would like to see closed?

ill take the first three into consideration for now:

wouldnt expect such a large growth, followed by a decrease, in forhead size. Cheek bones changes significantly, and jaw is changed dramatically between stages....

just seems to me like there would be more.
not saying this is fact, but an opinion....what do you guys think?

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

 

[flatworm]

if your talking chronologicly, i have yet to believe that dating methods at an extent of over 10k years is accurate (still researching specifics).
"make more sense" also leaves room for possible flaws, a few days after this topic was opened i was almost convinced that evolutoin took place....but now that i think about it, theres still alot of explanations of why it didnt exist.

And not one of those explanations has a shred of evidence going for it.

ill take the first three into consideration for now:
wouldnt expect such a large growth, followed by a decrease, in forhead size. Cheek bones changes significantly, and jaw is changed dramatically between stages....

just seems to me like there would be more.
not saying this is fact, but an opinion....what do you guys think?

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

Do you even know what these fossils are and what relationship is assigned to them by evolutionary biologists? I doubt it.

Are the Dik-Dik hominid, the Dmanisi skulls, or Tautavel man represented? Certainly not the latter two.

In fact the first is from a modern chimpanzee. That's where the big difference in the brow ridge and cheekbones come from. Chimpanzees are not descended from Australopithecines (which is what the other two are). Yes, the second and third are from the same species, Australopithecus Africanus. It just goes to show you creationists can find insurmountable gaps anywhere they want to.

Picking out three and claiming the difference between them is a problem for evolution is dishonest. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. You've been shown the fossils, and now you pretend they don't exist to make a rhetorical point. You clearly have no intention of making an honest examination of the evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

if your talking chronologicly, i have yet to believe that dating methods at an extent of over 10k years is accurate (still researching specifics).
"make more sense" also leaves room for possible flaws, a few days after this topic was opened i was almost convinced that evolutoin took place....but now that i think about it, theres still alot of explanations of why it didnt exist. Not saying your wrong, but im not saying your right.


i beleive God made those differnt species, and that they were originally created like that (no intermediate stage before it existed).
Cant say they are transitional as a fact?


ill take the first three into consideration for now:
[IMAGE]
wouldnt expect such a large growth, followed by a decrease, in forhead size. Cheek bones changes significantly, and jaw is changed dramatically between stages....

just seems to me like there would be more.
not saying this is fact, but an opinion....what do you guys think?

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

I'm pretty sure A isn't a homo species. It's a chimp put in there for comparison. This list of sculls isn't there to show an exact lineage for humanity... it's there to show that there is no clear line between man and 'ape'.

Also transitional doesn't always mean direct line, it can simply mean it's of a form that is somewhere between us and an earlier form, human ancestry branches off all over the place. For example up until about 20 thousand years ago there were two intelligent, tool using, afterlife believing (we think) and social hominids. The two species were us and the Neanderthals, who had heavier bone structure, larger brains and different DNA.

Personally I think it's a great tragedy that there is now only one species of intelligent animal. I wonder if the Neanderthals had got across the ice shelves to Canada if they could have grown in numbers to the point where we couldn't have easily wiped them out. Then again given how cruel we can be to members of our own species, I can only imagine how we'd treat a separate species.

 

[pyro214]

And not one of those explanations has a shred of evidence going for it.

evidence to show its wrong, shouldnt evidence be displayed to show its right? Yes in this case, i have no evidence.

I do know that they compare carbon 14 dating with ring tree dating (which proves it up to 6-10k years?). What else is there.... (i dont know, which is why i said still researching).

You clearly have no intention of making an honest examination of the evidence.

did before until FoeHammer pointed out that there may be some parts missing. Like i said, its not fact....but is a possibility? am i wrong to say that what i state is possible?

under the picture, page 21, it says to see a change other then size. Hes right, there is no change in size...although it would be far more convincing to see this happen to the whole body. Are the fossilized bodies of these transitions not available or will i be able to search them all...

do you beleive the origin of life can from non living matter, in this case....is there transitional fossils from some aquatic life to apes?

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

 

[Elduran]

Why is the Bible wrong in this instance?

FoeHammer.

Off topic, but since you ask:

Calling a whale a fish is making a very basic (and incorrect) assumption that all things that live in the sea are fish. Whales are mammals, they have more features in common with land creatures than fish (i.e. lungs, warm blood, live births, etc), so referring to them as fish is just incorrect.

 

[Edx]

ill take the first three into consideration for now:

wouldnt expect such a large growth, followed by a decrease, in forhead size. Cheek bones changes significantly, and jaw is changed dramatically between stages....

just seems to me like there would be more.
not saying this is fact, but an opinion....what do you guys think?

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

Why is it you guys will accept all manor of variation in size and shape in every other animal and plant yet pick on the smallest little things to say we are completely seperate from apes? I know the answer.

Ed

 

[FishFace]

and there could/ maybe should be more transitional fossils then that?
its hard to say, i would expect a more smoother transition.

Um... Have you looked at the pictures? How smooth would you like?

think about it...if all the dogs died today and fossilized. It wouldnt be to hard to make it look like a evolutionary transition a couple thousand years from now.

Yes it would. For two reasons. First of all, the dog tree is not something like "Wolf --> Chihuahua --> Poodle --> Pitbull --> Alsatian" - dogs tend to be like the "leaves" on the tree, not branches. If they did look like branches, then we would probably start off with the belief that they did evolve from one another. (For example, wolves to other dogs.)
And the other reason is that if all the dogs died today and fossilized, they would have all died at the same time, indicating that they all lived at the same time. We know that the other transitional fossils come sequentially.


While it's possible that two ends of the transition live at the same time (cf Dogs/Wolves again) at the start of the transition (Wolves) we would not expect to find the end (e.g. Poodles)

 

[FishFace]

I think you guys aren't giving pyro his due. He showed admirable ability to doubt his prior beliefs at the start of the thread - quite unlike your stereotypical YEC. Whether or not it is right and proper to lambast them for such behaviour is questionable, but it seems to me that it is valid to question such things as he did, given his other beliefs. If he didn't know that the chimp skull was there for comparison, or that the second two were the same species, it's natural to ask such questions.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes it would. For two reasons. First of all, the dog tree is not something like "Wolf --> Chihuahua --> Poodle --> Pitbull --> Alsatian" - dogs tend to be like the "leaves" on the tree, not branches.

there is a lot of really interesting stuff being done on the genetics of dogs. for instance, the current state of the art,
from:
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

The evolution of the domestic dog
The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago21; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool. A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites22. The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23.

In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence14 (Fig. 4). Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence does not support theories that domestic dogs arose from jackal ancestors24. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing25.

while some research is specifically locating the first domesticated wolf to Southeast Asia. there is a nice discussion of this at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61389
where the major papers appear to be linked. most of them are pay-for, and i am not at school now, so i can't quote from them, hence the link to the discussion that does quote.

if anyone is interested, i found it a rewarding few hours of study. the genetics is very recent and lots of people are working on the ramifications of it. just plain good stuff.

 

[pyro214]

Why is it you guys will accept all manor of variation in size and shape in every other animal and plant yet pick on the smallest little things to say we are completely seperate from apes? I know the answer.

Ed

have yet to see/ compare any other animal fossil transitions.
except:

for this the 4th and 5th transition dont look direclty related....stage missing inbetween there?

i asked earlier if we took 100 people from diffent locaions in the world today...and compared there skulls, how diffent would they be?
ive agreed in the past that microevolution is very possible, yet this is hard to view from only skulls, anyone know of body transitions? (i havnt been able to find it yet, still looking).
sorry for being stubbron, but drawing a line between it can happen (which is proven possible theoreticly) and it did happen is hard to do.

I think you guys aren't giving pyro his due. He showed admirable ability to doubt his prior beliefs at the start of the thread - quite unlike your stereotypical YEC. Whether or not it is right and proper to lambast them for such behaviour is questionable, but it seems to me that it is valid to question such things as he did, given his other beliefs. If he didn't know that the chimp skull was there for comparison, or that the second two were the same species, it's natural to ask such questions.

thanks, i try to have a open mind. Valkhorn and i were talking seperatly the other day and i came to the conclusion that this topic beacame alot bigger then i expect, im over my head with this stuff...i dont intend to prove myself right untell discussing this topic deeper in the christian section (people that share the same view as me and have sources i can read learn from). I will continue to ask questions if i have them.

 

[Edx]

i asked earlier if we took 100 people from diffent locaions in the world today...and compared there skulls, how diffent would they be?

And whats the relevance of this question?

Perhaps you would like to take a look at the this thread, along with my links to the bird picture posts which you will find at the end of my opening post.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3987852

ive agreed in the past that microevolution is very possible, yet this is hard to view from only skulls, anyone know of body transitions? (i havnt been able to find it yet, still looking).

Microevolution is evolution under the species level while macroevolution is evolution above the species level. if you arent going to use the words in the correct way you might as well not use them.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, there are dwarfs & midgets. Perhaps that is where man is headed.. A large head in proportion to a small body. That would make him smarter.... According to evolutionist's thinking. Shame that all we seem to desire are baskeball and football players.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, there are dwarfs & midgets. Perhaps that is where man is headed.. A large head in proportion to a small body. That would make him smarter.... According to evolutionist's thinking. Shame that all we seem to desire are baskeball and football players.

Someone has watched too much TV

 

[LittleNipper]

Someone has watched too much TV

Ididn't make these up----perhaps this was directly influenced by "scientific" evolutionary thinking......

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ididn't make these up----perhaps this was directly influenced by "scientific" evolutionary thinking......

More likely by BEM movies from the 50's. What does it have to do with transitional fossils?

 

[LittleNipper]

More likely by BEM movies from the 50's. What does it have to do with transitional fossils?

I didn't present the picture......

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I didn't present the picture......

You said this

"Perhaps that is where man is headed.. A large head in proportion to a small body. That would make him smarter.... According to evolutionist's thinking."

I don't think that "evolutionists" think that is where man is heading, I think you have science and science fiction confused, which is why I presented the picture. I am not surprised that you didn't get the point. Now do you have anything to say about transitional fossils that actually makes any sense?

F.B.

 

[pyro214]

off topic but funny,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCvY77jKutg&mode=related&search=

southpark -
(contains some language)

 

[flatworm]

evidence to show its wrong, shouldnt evidence be displayed to show its right? Yes in this case, i have no evidence.

I do know that they compare carbon 14 dating with ring tree dating (which proves it up to 6-10k years?). What else is there.... (i dont know, which is why i said still researching).

You claim to be researching but never come up with anything but the standard creationist claptrap. Go to the primary literature- the journal articles where actual working scientists publish their findings and other scientists verify their methodology.

Try to explain why disparate methods using different isotopes yield the same results. The best I've seen a creationist do on that point is make unfounded claims of conspiracy.

did before until FoeHammer pointed out that there may be some parts missing. Like i said, its not fact....but is a possibility? am i wrong to say that what i state is possible?

It's possible George W Bush will have a sex change and carry Osama Bin Laden's cloned loved child. Only a madman takes such a possibility seriously.

under the picture, page 21, it says to see a change other then size. Hes right, there is no change in size...

There are obvious changes in size for many different features on those skulls. The braincase, orbital ridgeS, and mandible are obvious examples.

although it would be far more convincing to see this happen to the whole body. Are the fossilized bodies of these transitions not available or will i be able to search them all...

Talkorigins maintains a partial list of fossil hominid specimens, which of course vary in their completeness.

do you beleive the origin of life can from non living matter, in this case....is there transitional fossils from some aquatic life to apes?

Another creationist strawman. What we have are transitionals between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and early forms of reptile, between these and early mammals, and several forms of early primate. No one claims aquatic life emerged onto land as anything recognizable as an ape.

question: if i took a skull from 100 differnt people, located in various contries, how differnt would the skulls look?

Not nearly as different as a modern human skull would be to an australopithecine, homo habilis, or even earlier homo erectus specimens. Look at how short the forehead is. Look at the large orbital ridge.

So tell me, have you actually been doing any research from sources that don't have a religious orthodoxy to uphold?