FutureandAHope said in the first iteration of this thread:
"We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution."
I did not get a chance to answer there, so I will answer here. Also, since you seem to think that most of the evidence is out of your reach, I disagree. I have confidence that anyone can understand it. So, FutureAndAHope, you can keep asking me until you do understand.
First, there are strawmen of evolution in the request. I put them in bold and italics. The first strawman is there should not by "wild and dramatic changes" between species. There should, instead, be gradual changes between species if evolution is true. Evolution is gradual. Changes happen over generations, and daughter species will look closely like the parent species. Look at the diagram in Origin of Species (there is only one): http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1 pg 90 It's not until you get several rounds of speciation until there is a new genus, family, or order that you are going to see "wild and dramatic changes". Even when, in the lab, natural selection converts fruit flies to "malt" or "starch" flies, the outward changes are not dramatic. Yes, the change in diet is dramatic, but not the outward appearance: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198909)43:6<1308:RIAACO>2.0.CO;2-K
Also, you are not often going to see "partial wings" or things like that. Instead, what we are going to see are "mosaics" of features. That is, some features that are characteristic of earlier species, and some features that are characteristic of later species. A. afarensis is an excellent example of a mosaic of features of earlier apes and later humans: http://elucy.org/compant.html https://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/american_biology_teacher/2010/February 2010/FebABTonline.pdf
A. afarensis has a very chimp-like skull, but human like teeth. The rib cage is more like a chimp, as are the long, dangly arms. The pelvis (hip bones) are intermediate between chimp and human. The knees and feet are more like humans and afarensis walked upright, unlike a chimp. A mosaic.
Archeopteryx is another mosaic of features that are dino-like and bird-like. The skeleton is very dino like, and indeed the first fossils (without feather impressions) were classified as a form of Compsagnathus. But the feathers are definitely like a bird.
In the case of dino to bird transition, there will be no "half-wings". The reason is a process called "exaptation". This means a feature evolved for one function but, once evolved, was able to do another. In the case of birds, they evolved from small theropod (carnivorous) dinosaurs. Theropods were already bipedal, so the forelimbs were free. Since theropods hunted smaller animals, the forelimbs had claws to grasp prey. There are fossils of half feathers, but feathers started as decoration, but worked as insulation. Remember, small dinos were warm-blooded, so, like small mammals, they needed insulation. As it turns out, "flapping" feathered forelimbs allows animals to run up inclined surfaces. Thus, feathered forelimbs would allow the theropods to run up logs, or rocks, or whatever. Either to chase prey or to escape larger predators.
2. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, 84-93, March 2003.
3. Kenneth P.Dial, Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight. Science, 299: 402-405, Jan 17, 2003.
4. Sawyer RH, Salvatore BA, Potylicki TT, French JO, Glenn TC,Knapp LWJ, Origin of feathers: Feather beta (beta) keratins are expressed indiscrete epidermal cell populations of embryonic scutate scales. Exp Zool 2003Feb 15;295B(1):12-24
(in case you want to read more)
Just as the feathers and "flapping" reach their maximum utility for running up inclined surfaces -- even past vertical -- is just the point where the forelimbs will get the animal off the ground. Voila! "instant" wings.
But let's get back to that fossil record. There are instances where the record is complete enough that there are series of transitional individual animals that we can track from species to species to new genera, fossils, orders and even class. Mammals and birds are an example of a Class in taxonomy. So you can see those are large differences. Most of these series are in invertebrates, because they are smaller and can be preserved in fine sediment so we can do the tracking. Also, some of the references are a bit obscure, but you can find them in a good college or university library. I found some at the SUNY Albany library in Albany, New York. So here is my list. It is nowhere near complete. Just what a biochemist has found looking through the evolution scientific literature. I've posted it to Christian Forums before: http://www.christianforums.com/t43227
Transitional series
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.html
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp 149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd Ed.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Remember, this is a very restricted list. Just transitional individuals. There are other series of transitional species from species to species to new genera, family, etc. Often times the author has transitional individuals between species in the series, but that wasn't the purpose of the paper.
"We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution."
I did not get a chance to answer there, so I will answer here. Also, since you seem to think that most of the evidence is out of your reach, I disagree. I have confidence that anyone can understand it. So, FutureAndAHope, you can keep asking me until you do understand.
First, there are strawmen of evolution in the request. I put them in bold and italics. The first strawman is there should not by "wild and dramatic changes" between species. There should, instead, be gradual changes between species if evolution is true. Evolution is gradual. Changes happen over generations, and daughter species will look closely like the parent species. Look at the diagram in Origin of Species (there is only one): http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1 pg 90 It's not until you get several rounds of speciation until there is a new genus, family, or order that you are going to see "wild and dramatic changes". Even when, in the lab, natural selection converts fruit flies to "malt" or "starch" flies, the outward changes are not dramatic. Yes, the change in diet is dramatic, but not the outward appearance: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198909)43:6<1308:RIAACO>2.0.CO;2-K
Also, you are not often going to see "partial wings" or things like that. Instead, what we are going to see are "mosaics" of features. That is, some features that are characteristic of earlier species, and some features that are characteristic of later species. A. afarensis is an excellent example of a mosaic of features of earlier apes and later humans: http://elucy.org/compant.html https://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/american_biology_teacher/2010/February 2010/FebABTonline.pdf
A. afarensis has a very chimp-like skull, but human like teeth. The rib cage is more like a chimp, as are the long, dangly arms. The pelvis (hip bones) are intermediate between chimp and human. The knees and feet are more like humans and afarensis walked upright, unlike a chimp. A mosaic.
Archeopteryx is another mosaic of features that are dino-like and bird-like. The skeleton is very dino like, and indeed the first fossils (without feather impressions) were classified as a form of Compsagnathus. But the feathers are definitely like a bird.
In the case of dino to bird transition, there will be no "half-wings". The reason is a process called "exaptation". This means a feature evolved for one function but, once evolved, was able to do another. In the case of birds, they evolved from small theropod (carnivorous) dinosaurs. Theropods were already bipedal, so the forelimbs were free. Since theropods hunted smaller animals, the forelimbs had claws to grasp prey. There are fossils of half feathers, but feathers started as decoration, but worked as insulation. Remember, small dinos were warm-blooded, so, like small mammals, they needed insulation. As it turns out, "flapping" feathered forelimbs allows animals to run up inclined surfaces. Thus, feathered forelimbs would allow the theropods to run up logs, or rocks, or whatever. Either to chase prey or to escape larger predators.
2. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, 84-93, March 2003.
3. Kenneth P.Dial, Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight. Science, 299: 402-405, Jan 17, 2003.
4. Sawyer RH, Salvatore BA, Potylicki TT, French JO, Glenn TC,Knapp LWJ, Origin of feathers: Feather beta (beta) keratins are expressed indiscrete epidermal cell populations of embryonic scutate scales. Exp Zool 2003Feb 15;295B(1):12-24
(in case you want to read more)
Just as the feathers and "flapping" reach their maximum utility for running up inclined surfaces -- even past vertical -- is just the point where the forelimbs will get the animal off the ground. Voila! "instant" wings.
But let's get back to that fossil record. There are instances where the record is complete enough that there are series of transitional individual animals that we can track from species to species to new genera, fossils, orders and even class. Mammals and birds are an example of a Class in taxonomy. So you can see those are large differences. Most of these series are in invertebrates, because they are smaller and can be preserved in fine sediment so we can do the tracking. Also, some of the references are a bit obscure, but you can find them in a good college or university library. I found some at the SUNY Albany library in Albany, New York. So here is my list. It is nowhere near complete. Just what a biochemist has found looking through the evolution scientific literature. I've posted it to Christian Forums before: http://www.christianforums.com/t43227
Transitional series
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.html
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp 149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd Ed.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Remember, this is a very restricted list. Just transitional individuals. There are other series of transitional species from species to species to new genera, family, etc. Often times the author has transitional individuals between species in the series, but that wasn't the purpose of the paper.
Last edited:
