Looking for all the missing links

[Split Rock]

This is only a classification problem. You can set up a system of criteria and classify everything according to what you set up. Of course, there will be one on each end and a bunch in the middle. This does not say anything about their genetic relationships.

They are temporally in the correct place in the geological column as well, which is a little point you are neglecting.

I can list all shape/size/etc. of tables and claim one evolved into another. The evidence would be impressively strong.

Great, please do so. Then provide us a mechanism for the evolution which will be kind of hard considering the simple fact that tables do not reproduce! You would also never get a single tree because table makers can mix and match whatever traits they like. Unlike what we see with organisms, strangely enough. Hmmmm.......

If you like to, you could use one example to illustrate your point and we can examine if the classification is really genetically related. In spite of other boring arguments, I might even learn something from you by the example.

Not sure how we would do that considering the other simple fact we don't have any DNA from these extinct species. The phylogeny is based on morphology.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no reason for that.

1. Fossilization is a rare process. The environment must be antithetical to the breakdown of an organism by microorganisms in order for fossilization to succeed.

2. The fossil must be preserved after fossilization and not destroyed by tectonic activity.

3. The fossil must be brought to the surface (in most cases) either by uplifting or erosion.

4. The fossil must be discovered identified as such.

5. The fossil must be dug out, removed from the surrounding rock, studied and then written up in the scientific literature.

 

[good brother]

You take a look. It may shock you how large the taxonomy of these transitionals are, but I doubt it will change your mind at all.

Cynodont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I count Twelve families in the Cynodontia suborder alone, in addition to other unranked groups. These were just the most immediate ancestors to mammals. How Much Is Enough?

Of the pictures of the artist's imagination, those all looked more like a comparison of subspecies within the species (like comparing dog breeds, horses, elephants, cats, bears, or Darwin's finches) than demonstrating some kind of transition forms from one thing to something else.

In addition, even the site you linked admits that there are far more mammalian traits than that of reptiles, so how could one say they are transitional at all? How are we to know that they have been labeled correctly? Perhaps they were just a group of mammals that are now extinct?

Oh, and 12? When you think of how many transitions, actual transitions, are really needed, twelve supposed examples are like having .000001% of a fingerprint and trying to make a conviction on that.

In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

Of the pictures of the artist's imagination, those all looked more like a comparison of subspecies within the species (like comparing dog breeds, horses, elephants, cats, bears, or Darwin's finches) than demonstrating some kind of transition forms from one thing to something else.

In addition, even the site you linked admits that there are far more mammalian traits than that of reptiles, so how could one say they are transitional at all? How are we to know that they have been labeled correctly? Perhaps they were just a group of mammals that are now extinct?

Oh, and 12? When you think of how many transitions, actual transitions, are really needed, twelve supposed examples are like having .000001% of a fingerprint and trying to make a conviction on that.

In Christ, GB

Twelve FAMILIES, not twelve species/ subspecies. Do you know the hierarchy that taxonomy uses?

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Thus, a families consists of multiple genera, each with multiple species. The website covers the genera and species as well, if you look.

I already indicated that the Cyonodonts are the closest to mammals, therefore it would make sense that they have more mammalian traits than reptilian traits. Do you want to talk about earlier orders of mammal-like reptiles too? Does it matter? If I show you 100 transitionals will that be enough? 200? How Many Are Enough?

The Cynodonts were the latest Therapsids before true mammals evolved. Here is the entire Therapsid phyologeny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida
We are therapsids... the mammals are on the bottom.
This page discusses mammalian evolution in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
Is that enough transitionals for you?
Does any of this matter to you? Still not enough transitionals, right?

 

[juvenissun]

1. Fossilization is a rare process. The environment must be antithetical to the breakdown of an organism by microorganisms in order for fossilization to succeed.

2. The fossil must be preserved after fossilization and not destroyed by tectonic activity.

3. The fossil must be brought to the surface (in most cases) either by uplifting or erosion.

4. The fossil must be discovered identified as such.

5. The fossil must be dug out, removed from the surrounding rock, studied and then written up in the scientific literature.

Agree. That is why I said: shale. Mud deposit in the ocean could satisfy all your requirement of fossil preservation.

I don't know the detail, but we have the Burgess Shale, what does the shale above the Burgess Shale look like? If it is not fossiliferous any more, what happened?

 

[juvenissun]

They are temporally in the correct place in the geological column as well, which is a little point you are neglecting.


Great, please do so. Then provide us a mechanism for the evolution which will be kind of hard considering the simple fact that tables do not reproduce! You would also never get a single tree because table makers can mix and match whatever traits they like. Unlike what we see with organisms, strangely enough. Hmmmm.......



Not sure how we would do that considering the other simple fact we don't have any DNA from these extinct species. The phylogeny is based on morphology.

So, if we look at things that preserved its DNA, no evolution. Because the time is not long enough. And we look things that had enough time, then no DNA samples. As a scientist, what does that say to you? Simply bad luck? Do you really need to work on DNA to show transition? Does that cellulose-eating bacteria show any DNA variation?

In this situation, when you face the "no transition fossil" challenge, why would anyone still try to argue? Why not just admit: yes, no evidence for transitional fossil. How would that hurt the idea of evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Twelve FAMILIES, not twelve species/ subspecies. Do you know the hierarchy that taxonomy uses?

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Thus, a families consists of multiple genera, each with multiple species. The website covers the genera and species as well, if you look.

I already indicated that the Cyonodonts are the closest to mammals, therefore it would make sense that they have more mammalian traits than reptilian traits. Do you want to talk about earlier orders of mammal-like reptiles too? Does it matter? If I show you 100 transitionals will that be enough? 200? How Many Are Enough?

The Cynodonts were the latest Therapsids before true mammals evolved. Here is the entire Therapsid phyologeny: Therapsida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We are therapsids... the mammals are on the bottom.
This page discusses mammalian evolution in general:
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is that enough transitionals for you?
Does any of this matter to you? Still not enough transitionals, right?

That is where all the problems are. Chimp skeleton can be put in between another ape (name?) and human. Does that mean the chimp is half (that) ape and half human? This shows how unreliable the taxonomy is in interpreting the real nature of animals. The data are simply misused and misinterpreted.

 

[Split Rock]

Agree. That is why I said: shale. Mud deposit in the ocean could satisfy all your requirement of fossil preservation.

I don't know the detail, but we have the Burgess Shale, what does the shale above the Burgess Shale look like? If it is not fossiliferous any more, what happened?

I found this really cool site where this guy went to the Burgess Shale and did some fossil hunting. He showed lots of cool pics. Take a look: Hiking to the Burgess Shale - Mountain Beltway - AGU Blogosphere

Notice.... still no fish, lobsters, crabs, etc.

A few interesting tidbits:

"A few looks at the shale itself. Notice the thin laminations, suggesting very low water energy at the time of deposition"

"Basically, the Burgess is a member of the Stephen Formation, which is a deep water shale."

This linked site is interesting: A visit to the Burgess Shale

"This slate is situated a few hundred metres away from the Mt. Stephen fossil site. The original bedding planes of the parent shale are visible, at about a 45° degree angle (up to the right). The slatey cleavage is at about 80° (up to the right). If the nearby fossil-bearing rock had been this strongly metamorphosed the fossils would have been destroyed. The fossil-bearing rock was protected from strong metamorphism by its proximity to the hard and strong Cathedral Formation limestone."

"About a kilometre before reaching our destination we came across some good examples of phyllite - metamorphosed shale of the Mt. Stephen Formation. Again, this type of metamorphism would have obliterated any trace of fossils in these rocks. As at Mt. Stephen, the Burgess Shale rocks were protected from this by their proximity to the Cathedral Formation limestone."

So, much of the shale was metamorphosed, and thus fossil preservation is poor or non-existant.

There are other parts of the shale, however, which yeild similar fossils: http://www.burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/history/discoveries/03-raymond.php
"Raymond's specimens showed Burgess Shale-type fossils could be found beyond the famous Walcott Quarry and at various stratigraphic intervals, including in the Mount Stephen Trilobite Beds. Indeed, new Burgess shale-type deposits have since been discovered as far away as China, Greenland, and Australia."

 

[Split Rock]

That is where all the problems are. Chimp skeleton can be put in between another ape (name?) and human. Does that mean the chimp is half (that) ape and half human? This shows how unreliable the taxonomy is in interpreting the real nature of animals. The data are simply misused and misinterpreted.

You are ignoring the location of these fossils in the geological column. There are right where you would expect a reptile-mammal transition to be, in the Permian-Triassic. Since chimps are extant, they obviously are not transitional between an older ape and us.

 

[Split Rock]

So, if we look at things that preserved its DNA, no evolution. Because the time is not long enough. And we look things that had enough time, then no DNA samples. As a scientist, what does that say to you? Simply bad luck? Do you really need to work on DNA to show transition? Does that cellulose-eating bacteria show any DNA variation?

In this situation, when you face the "no transition fossil" challenge, why would anyone still try to argue? Why not just admit: yes, no evidence for transitional fossil. How would that hurt the idea of evolution?

Nonsense piled on nonsense. We can use DNA to show evolution, in situations where we can gather such data. Extinct fossil species are obviously not such a case. Yes, that "cellulose-eating" bacteria (I think you mean nylon-eating) show DNA variation. It was a frame-shift mutation, as discussed many times in this forum already.

Why don't you just admit there are transitionals. How would that hurt thw idea of God creating life on earth?

 

[juvenissun]

Nonsense piled on nonsense. We can use DNA to show evolution, in situations where we can gather such data. Extinct fossil species are obviously not such a case. Yes, that "cellulose-eating" bacteria (I think you mean nylon-eating) show DNA variation. It was a frame-shift mutation, as discussed many times in this forum already.

Why don't you just admit there are transitionals. How would that hurt thw idea of God creating life on earth?

There is another thread in this forum which talked about DNA and evolution. I don't see any conclusions there. They can not even agree on what does a "split" of species mean. Basically, even you look at the DNA change, there is still no conclusion on the evolution.

I see you like to reverse a hard question and ask back. That is not a quality way of reasoning. It might be used as the last resort, when you have no better thing to say.

I really like to admit that there are enough transition fossils. But I can not see a consistent standard which is applied to the evaluation of so-called transition. And I never know there is such a standard. If so, why should I accept the idea of transitional life form? Be a creationist or not.

 

[juvenissun]

You are ignoring the location of these fossils in the geological column. There are right where you would expect a reptile-mammal transition to be, in the Permian-Triassic. Since chimps are extant, they obviously are not transitional between an older ape and us.

Would that be a very bad time for transition to take place? While nearly all species died off, how would any transition take place?

If you think chimp transformed to human, then you opened a big big can of worms. If all transitional forms have a similar degree of problem, then I think the idea of transitional form is a very very bad idea.

 

[juvenissun]

I found this really cool site where this guy went to the Burgess Shale and did some fossil hunting. He showed lots of cool pics. Take a look: Hiking to the Burgess Shale - Mountain Beltway - AGU Blogosphere

Notice.... still no fish, lobsters, crabs, etc.

A few interesting tidbits:

"A few looks at the shale itself. Notice the thin laminations, suggesting very low water energy at the time of deposition"

"Basically, the Burgess is a member of the Stephen Formation, which is a deep water shale."

This linked site is interesting: A visit to the Burgess Shale

"This slate is situated a few hundred metres away from the Mt. Stephen fossil site. The original bedding planes of the parent shale are visible, at about a 45° degree angle (up to the right). The slatey cleavage is at about 80° (up to the right). If the nearby fossil-bearing rock had been this strongly metamorphosed the fossils would have been destroyed. The fossil-bearing rock was protected from strong metamorphism by its proximity to the hard and strong Cathedral Formation limestone."

"About a kilometre before reaching our destination we came across some good examples of phyllite - metamorphosed shale of the Mt. Stephen Formation. Again, this type of metamorphism would have obliterated any trace of fossils in these rocks. As at Mt. Stephen, the Burgess Shale rocks were protected from this by their proximity to the Cathedral Formation limestone."

So, much of the shale was metamorphosed, and thus fossil preservation is poor or non-existant.

There are other parts of the shale, however, which yeild similar fossils: Percy Raymond - Discoveries - History -The Burgess Shale
"Raymond's specimens showed Burgess Shale-type fossils could be found beyond the famous Walcott Quarry and at various stratigraphic intervals, including in the Mount Stephen Trilobite Beds. Indeed, new Burgess shale-type deposits have since been discovered as far away as China, Greenland, and Australia."

Thanks for the info.

Just a remark as a feedback from me: I doubt the limestone protection of the fossil protection is a correct idea. In the shale-phyllite-slate transition, the force is in very fine scale shears. A limestone layer, no matter how thick, can not protect any other rocks in this situation.

Somehow I never know the fossils in the Burgess Shale were metamorphosed and then reworked. Incredible.

 

[Split Rock]

Would that be a very bad time for transition to take place? While nearly all species died off, how would any transition take place?

A few survived the extinction event. The transition continued after the recovery. Or maybe it even helped, as extinctions open up niches.

If you think chimp transformed to human, then you opened a big big can of worms. If all transitional forms have a similar degree of problem, then I think the idea of transitional form is a very very bad idea.

I don't think that, no..... that was your idea.

 

[good brother]

Why don't you just admit there are transitionals.

Is that why past evolutionists have put living humans in zoo exhibits to demonstrate evolution from ape to man? Because there were so many transition to choose from?

How would that hurt the idea of God creating life on earth?

Perhaps because the Bible says that God created us in His image, not some apeizoid. Two truly diametrically opposed ideas of origins.

In Christ, GB

 

[USincognito]

Chimp skeleton can be put in between another ape (name?) and human.

Horsefeathers.

Unless you can provide an example...

 

[Freodin]

Is that why past evolutionists have put living humans in zoo exhibits to demonstrate evolution from ape to man? Because there were so many transition to choose from?


Perhaps because the Bible says that God created us in His image, not some apeizoid. Two truly diametrically opposed ideas of origins.

In Christ, GB

What image would that be?

 

[Jazer]

the Bible says that God created us in His image,

What part of "fearfully and wonderfully made" do you feel conflicts with the theory of random mutations?

 

[Jazer]

What image would that be?

That means He did not create us in the likeness of a monkey. Although some people are little more then animals and like the animals they well perish.

 

[good brother]

What part of "fearfully and wonderfully made" do you feel conflicts with the theory of random mutations?

I would have to go out on a limb and say..... all of it?

Thanks for pointing that out. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made by God and evolution teaches that we are nothing but a whole bunch of random yet coincidentally beneficial mutations. The funny (not so funny "ha ha", but funny "ironic") thing about it is there are "Bible believing" Christians who see no problem with compromising what the Bible says and will state confidently that evolution and the Bible go virtually hand in hand!

In Christ, GB