Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 125 of 223 (317311)
06-03-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pompuspom
06-03-2006 4:23 PM


Re: I have no faith..
pompuspom writes:
Over the last few years I've thought..strange how there are no extinct species of ape? They've all been dug up and classified as human ancestors. All of them are human ancestors.
Well, I'm willing to help you a bit with your homework. I think that the ape fossil question is tangentally related to the topic, because the ape fossils do represent transitions along the lineage that eventually came to include our own, and some of the early ones show a mixture of ape and old-world monkey characteristics.
First of all, humans are classified as great apes (in the superfamily Hominoidea), so all of those human ancestors you're talking about (the upright-walking apes, subfamily Homininae) are also apes. And since all apes are related, the ape fossils that predate the divergence of the hominin lineage from other apes are also ancestral to humans, at least indirectly. But we certainly have lots of ape fossils that are not classified in the human subfamily.
Here are some of the fossil ape genera (lifted from John Hawks' Anthropology weblog):
quote:
Aegyptopithecus (likely ancestral catarrhine)
Proconsul
Afropithecus
Otavipithecus
Turkanapithecus
Dryopithecus
Ouranopithecus
Sivapithecus
Gigantopithecus
Ankarapithecus
Lufengpithecus
Oreopithecus
Following the link above (and searches on Google) will provide you with much more information!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pompuspom, posted 06-03-2006 4:23 PM pompuspom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:45 PM Belfry has not replied
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 06-03-2006 11:44 PM Belfry has replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 135 of 223 (317537)
06-04-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by NosyNed
06-03-2006 11:44 PM


Re: "Ape" ancestors
NosyNed writes:
I think what pompuspom is referring to is the lack of fossils from the line leading to modern non human primates from after the split with our lineage.
I'm not sure that's clear from the post, and I guess he was satisfied. He seemed to mainly be concerned that "All of them are human ancestors," which is easily dealt with by pointing out that the Asian ape lineage (including the fossil genera Dryopithecus, Sivapithecus, Gigantopithecus, and Lufengpithecus, and leading to orangutans) is in a distinct clade from the African apes (including humans), so those are not considered ancestral. We do have good fossils of Asian apes from after the hominin split. Gigantopithecus is known to have shared its range with Homo erectus. Not much found yet for the recent ancestors of chimps or gorillas, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 06-03-2006 11:44 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 138 of 223 (317546)
06-04-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by pompuspom
06-04-2006 8:10 AM


Re: duh
pompuspom writes:
I had a quick peek at one of these links supplied in reply to my statement that 'there are no link fossils'. There is a lot of text. One could spend a long time trying to find evidence on the net, and any material available to read. I'll do some more research, when I have time. All this material is based on a belief that evolution is true.
That evolution occurred is a settled issue among biologists. The material is based on a belief that evolution is true in the same sense that modern chemistry is based on a belief that atomic theory is true.
pompuspom writes:
The human evolution subject, in my previous existance as a beleiver, provided the strongest evidence for evolution, but recently I've seen monkeys from S.America with a rounded head shape.
So what? You don't think that the placement of fossils into the hominin lineage is based on something as simple as "rounded head shape," do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by pompuspom, posted 06-04-2006 8:10 AM pompuspom has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 211 of 223 (341537)
08-19-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 9:36 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Chuteleach writes:
it's funny you discredit it because the soft part wouldn't be preserved, how do scientists figure anything about fossils if all they see is the hard parts.
They see differences in the hard parts.
But back up for a minute, you still haven't supported your assertion that fossil horseshoe crabs have been found that are indistinguishable from one of the modern species.
This is a science forum. You may be called upon to support your claims.
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 9:36 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Belfry has replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 213 of 223 (341575)
08-19-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 10:09 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
quote:
Yes, I understand this is a science forum, but also, you have no scientific proof that life can come from non-living matter.
  —Chuteleach
That is off-topic in this thread. In fact, it's off-topic in the Biological Evolution forum, as abiogenesis and evolution are distinct topics. For this reason, we have a separate "Origin of Life" forum.
As for your link. Links are useful for support, but you should explain how it supports your view. "Bare links" are frowned upon here.
In this case, the AIG page you linked to does not support your claim. Putting aside the fact that AIG is hardly a reliable source for scientific information, they do not even make the claim you do. They show a picture of a fossil horseshoe crab and a modern one, and the caption asserts simply (and incorrectly), "A serious challenge to evolution." They do not say that the two are indistinguishable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Belfry has replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 219 of 223 (341817)
08-20-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:30 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Chuteleach writes:
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't. I don't care if just giving a link is frowned upon or not, use a little common sense it goes a long way.
I should probably have been more clear. Presenting bare links runs counter to the Forum Rules:
quote:
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
This forum takes its rules a bit more seriously than what you might be used to, and people are often suspended or banned for failing to follow them. I'm not a moderator, but I see that you're new, and I'd like to help you find your footing here.
We can provide many examples of AIG giving false, misleading, and deceptive information. But that's another topic that has been covered many times over. As for common sense, it's a notoriously bad way to come to conclusions. But that's also another topic. Your AiG link does not support your conclusion, and provides false information besides. From this latter point alone, we can conclude that it is not credible.
Chuteleach writes:
the middle right is a living Limulus
the bottom right is a fossilized Limulus
how does that not support my claim?
I realize that you might not be familiar with the scientific classification, so that's a reasonable question. Limulus is a genus name. A genus can include many different species, and species within a genus can be remarkably different from each other. Certainly, saying that two samples are in the same genus does not equal saying that they have the same phenotype.
In reference to your Message 217, the Jurassic specimen would indeed be in the Mesolimulus genus as Lithodid-Man said. This is another case where your link does not support your assertion. The Wiki link shows that there is a modern species of Limulus (L. polyphemus), but we already knew that. The wiki does not say that the same species is found in the Jurassic fossil record.
Although the horseshoe crab lineage is highly conserved, there are differences apparent in the fossil specimens that have been found, and paleontologists have been examining these for a long time. As the abstract says in this old Journal of Paleontology article (Stormer 1952):
quote:
Fossil Xiphosura are known from all geological systems from the Cambrian onward. A distinct trend of development, particularly from the Silurian to Recent time, is demonstrated.
In other words, the changes within this lineage may not be drastic, but the evidence demonstrates that change has been taking place over time in this group. The article says that Mesolimulus is "characteristic of the Jurassic. Compared with Recent forms, it shows primitive features particularly in having distinct dorsal furrows."
A recent phylogeny of Xiphosura (the class which includes the horseshoe crab family Limulidae) can be seen here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5198 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 221 of 223 (341827)
08-20-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Xiphosurans
quote:
There are a few (and it is very few) references to Limulus walchi fossils from Solnhofen. It would take somebody who knows their fossils to say what the one pictured on AiG is. Actually given how few references to Limulus walchi there are I wonder if they are misidentifications.
  —MangyTiger
I'm pretty sure it's just an outdated classification. From what I've been able to gather, I believe Mesolimulus is a fairly new genus, and prior to that M. walchi was placed in the Limulus genus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 10:27 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-20-2006 11:15 PM Belfry has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024