Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 301 (3857)
02-08-2002 2:48 PM


As requested by redstang281:
"Post some transitional fossil [sic] on here in new threads. That way the local creationists can research and rebuttle."
I've seen this topic on MBs before that went no where because the two sides did not agree upon what constitutes a 'transitional form'.
So allow me to pre-emptively state that 'transitional forms' ARE NOT:
partially formed organisms ( one wing & one reptilian claw of a reptile halfway to becoming a bird ). Evidence of such would actually weigh against the ToE.
So what would we look for ?
How about evidence of an organism possessing traits similar to two (or more) other species. My first example will possess some similarity to modern humans (but obviously not Homo sapien) and less derived traits of a chimpanzee (but obviously not Pan Troglodyte) - our nearest living relative, genetically speaking.
Notice this isn't a fragmentary specimen that leaves doubt as to whether it is a knuckle-walking ape or a bipedal hominid.
There is little doubt that this specimen shares quite a bit of our own physiology - from the neck down (though there are still subtle but distinct differences there too).
The fossil above was discovered in Kenya, 1984; has been widely studied and documented.
Now, so you don't conclude this is some freak individual who does not represent a population but a deformed modern human, consider these discoveries from former Soviet Georgia in 2000:
Though these discoveries have not been scrutinized to the same extent as the Turkana Boy specimen, they DO posses a clear resemblence in shape, size and general morphology. ( I won't delve into the radio-metric dating which suggests ALL these individuals were comtemporaries. That I'll defer to another time and thread- we're only discussing morphology here.)
So, how do Young Earth Creationists explain this evidence ?
The ToE suggests these are specimens of a species of 'transitional forms' some where between (and possessing traits of) Modern Humans and Modern Chimpanzees (though much closer to humans).
Small changes, accumulated over thousands of generations, lead to newer species - though not necessarily the demise of the older species.
How does the Bible account for this evidence ?
I've provided a case for Transitional Forms in human evolution. There are also reams of evidence supporting the evolution of organisms other than Hominids, such as Trees, flowering plants, Trilobytes, Horses, Whales, Insects, Carnivores - even Dinosaurs.
I'll leave it to someone else here to elaborate on these. They probably make a stroger case for evolution than simply studying Hominids , but I am less familar with that evidence.
Kind Regards,
Jeff
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 3:10 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 8:07 AM Jeff has not replied
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 02-18-2002 1:00 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 24 by bkwusa, posted 02-19-2002 11:42 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2002 11:31 AM Jeff has not replied
 Message 92 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 8:59 AM Jeff has not replied
 Message 117 by dents, posted 08-14-2002 12:22 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 123 by Brad McFall, posted 09-12-2002 4:13 PM Jeff has replied
 Message 125 by Ahmad, posted 11-07-2002 1:41 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 164 by Piotr Lenartowicz SJ, posted 05-21-2003 6:29 PM Jeff has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 301 (3858)
02-08-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
02-08-2002 2:48 PM


I'm being a bit lazy here, listing examples I have already given in other posts.
Invertebrate transitionals :
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
Consider the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Lower Silurian of Great Britain (Ziegler, 1966). We find two species both classified as Eocoelia based on the details of internal morphology. However, the shells of the older species are coarsely ribbed whereas the shells of the younger species are smooth (Ziegler, 1966). If we examine samples collected from geochronologically intermediate positions, we find a succession of Eocoelia that progressively reduced and ultimately lost the ribs (Ziegler, 1966). This morphologic progression can be illustrated both qualitatively with specimen illustrations and quantitatively by measuring rib strength and plotting the data as a series of histograms in stratigraphic order (Ziegler, 1966). Such sequences are the preserved remains of temporally successive populations of organisms that morphologically changed from one species into another. All of these intermediate forms thus qualifies as transitional fossils. The only logical conclusion is that such successive populations were produced by normal reproductive processes. That is descent with modification (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266-269).
Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites
Showing Trilobite transitionals.
Pikaia gracilens (Science & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler, 1999, p405)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
The Cambrian lobopods occupy a transitional morphological position between several living phyla. The oldest known lobopod from the Early Cambrian is Xenusion. This organism bears similarities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads. Furthermore, lobo-pods also have morphological features in common with the arthropods, particularly with peculiar Cambrian forms such as Opabinia and Anomalocaris. Recent redescription of Opabinia has also disclosed the presence of lobopod limbs strongly suggesting a lobopod to arthropod transition. The discovery of a Cambrian gill-bearing lobopod reinforces this conclusion. These forms fall nicely into a transitional position between extant phyla.
Another very important group of Early Cambrian fossils is represented by a wide variety of tiny cap-shaped and scalelike skeletal elements. It is now known that many of these belonged to slug-like animals that bore these hollow mineralized structures like a dermal armor. Two well-known, and well-preserved, examples of this group of organisms are Wiwaxia and Halkieria. Called the Machaeridia or the Coelosceritophora, these organisms are mosaics of phylum-level characteristics, and their taxonomic affinity is a matter of present debate. A strong case can be made for the assignment of at least some of these taxa to the Mollusca. However, a relationship to the polychaete annelid worms is also strongly suggested by some workers, as with Wiwaxia. The taxonomic confusion associated with these scale-bearing slug-like animals, and with the lobopods, is consistent with their stratigraphic position at the base of the Cambrian metazoan radiation.
http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/abstracts/issue991202/abstract991202_518.shtml
An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate
Jun-Yuan Chen, Di-Ying Huang and Chia-Wei Li
Since the identification of the Lower Cambrian Yunnanozoon as a chordate in 1995, large numbers of complete specimens of soft-bodied chordates from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan (southern China) have been recovered. Here we describe a recently discovered craniate-like chordate, Haikouella lanceolata, from 305 fossil specimens in Haikou near Kunming. This 530 million-year-old (Myr) fish-like animal resembles the contemporaneous Yunnanozoon from the Chengjiang fauna (about 35km southeast of Haikou) in several anatomic features. But Haikouella also has several additional anatomic features: a heart, ventral and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles. These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.
Lets take the evolution of the horse, from:
Hyracotherium (Eohippus), to Orohippus, to Epihippus, to Mesohippus, to Miohippus, to Parahippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Modern Horse.
Why is this sequence inferred? In all cases, a progressive reduction in side toe functionality appears, with increased emphasis on the middle toe. The side toes become increasingly vestigial, as the middle toe becomes more prominent, ending up as the hoof. Not enough? A similar progression is seen in size, skull shape, & teeth forms.
Still not enough? The side toes on modern horses are represented today as splints at the back of the shins. The process can be seen in the flick book of horse evolution. If this sequence never occurred, why do the side toes appear in horse embryos? Also, they are present occasionally in adult horses, exactly where the fossil record predicted they would be, replacing the splints. (Science & Earth History. Arthur N. Strahler 1999).
And, our old friend, Archaeopteryx.
Present In Dinosaurs But Not In Birds: Pubic peduncle, long bony tail, abdominal ribs.
Present In Birds But Not In Dinosaurs : Pygostyle, bony sternum, furcula (wishbone), hypotarsus, feathers.
Present In Archaeopteryx : All of the above.
The problem is, creationists hear something that they like, "there are no transitional fossils" & stop right there. No more thinking or research is required. There are new transitional fossils being discovered with regularity, I'm afraid.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 02-08-2002 2:48 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 3:15 PM mark24 has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 301 (3859)
02-08-2002 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
02-08-2002 3:10 PM


Mark on a seperate note do you remember the discovery of Baryonyx Walkeri in the late eighties (86 I believe) in Norfolk. It was a fish eating dinosaur with a big hook like claw. I just mentioned it on another thread and know i will be asked for more detail, trouble is i was only 8 in 86 so I was wondering if you could remember anything.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 3:10 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 3:31 PM joz has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 301 (3863)
02-08-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by joz
02-08-2002 3:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Mark on a seperate note do you remember the discovery of Baryonyx Walkeri in the late eighties (86 I believe) in Norfolk. It was a fish eating dinosaur with a big hook like claw. I just mentioned it on another thread and know i will be asked for more detail, trouble is i was only 8 in 86 so I was wondering if you could remember anything.....
Joz,
I don't remeber that specifically, but dinosaurs being found with their stomach contents are nothing new.
http://exn.ca/Dinosaurs/LifeStyles.cfm
"Dentition can usually determine if dinosaurs were herbivorous or carnivorous. But to get any more specific, evidence of stomach contents are important. Pine needles and twigs have been found inside the fossils of duckbilled dinosaurs, and small mammals and lizards have been found in the stomach cavities of Coelurosaurs."
http://www.paleodirect.com/pliopleo1.htm
(Pliosaurs)
We can learn about what they ate from the fossils. Occasionally stomach contents are found with well-preserved specimens, showing that some at least fed on belemnites and ammonites.
http://www.fossilking.com/earlyfossils.html#
(Platecarpus)
Stomach Contents:
A Shovel-nosed Guitar Fish (similiar to shark), 3.5' long.
- and -
The skull of an Arambourg, originally 6' long. The most complete discovery of this species was destroyed in WW II.
The list goes on & on..........
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 3:15 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 3:35 PM mark24 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 301 (3864)
02-08-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
02-08-2002 3:31 PM


Thats ok I found it here:
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/clover16.html
"A fairly large theropod (9.5 m) was found in the Wealden of England in 1988. This theropod, Baryonyx walkeri has skull similar but more elongate than Dilophosaurus. It has a small crest in midline, but not a large double crest. It seems to be a ceratosaur. It has a very large claw on digit I of the manus, which make most sense as a defensive weapon. Its long snout and the fact that remains of fish were found in its gut suggest that it was a fish-eater."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 3:31 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 301 (3912)
02-09-2002 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
02-08-2002 2:48 PM


Fish Transitionals:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/11_6_99/fob1.htm
Until recently, fish appeared suddenly in the fossil record. The earliest known chordates, in which resides the vertebrate sub-phylum, were amphioxus like organisms. Lacking backbones, but possessing notochords, these were represented by pikaia, Yunnanozoon lividum, Haikouella lanceolata. The "intermediate" between chordates & true vertebrates (Of which fish are the earliest representatives)was missing. Until now.
Two species, Haikouichthys, & Myllokunmingia have been found in chinese lower cambrian rocks.
"Both the Chinese specimens have a zigzag arrangement of segmented musclesthe same type of pattern seen in fish today, reports Degan Shu of Northwest University in Xi'an, China, and his colleagues. The fossils, named Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, also have a more complex arrangement of gills than the simple slits used by amphioxus, according to the team's report in the Nov. 4 Nature."
"Although the ancient Chinese animals qualify as vertebrates, they lack the bony skeleton and teeth seen in most, but not all, members of this subphylum today. Instead, these early jawless fish appear to have had skulls and other skeletal structures made of cartilage, says Simon Conway Morris of the University of Cambridge in England, who collaborated with the Chinese team."
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 02-08-2002 2:48 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by wj, posted 02-10-2002 9:15 PM mark24 has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 301 (4033)
02-10-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
02-09-2002 8:07 AM


Is it my imagination or is there a complete lack of response from creationists at this site? I was of the understanding that "transitional" fossils, which represent transition between species, would constitute evidence of past macroevolution and therefore are inconsistent with creationism.
Is such hard evidence which contradicts creationism to go unchallenged? Ot is the theory of creationism in the process of undergoing some radical evolution to account for such evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 8:07 AM mark24 has not replied

Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 301 (4947)
02-18-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
02-08-2002 2:48 PM


Excuse me redstang281,
But were your words just idle chatter when you requested we post evidence for transitionals so that the YECies could "research and rebut" ?
Can we conclude that the Young Earth Creation model is BUST ? and completely incapable of explaining the evidence presented here ?
...and the YECies are overjoyed that this embarrassing question has rolled off the page ...from their neglect ?
Well Alrighty, then !!
Creationism has conceded defeat. This anti-Intellectual excercise has ended with victory to science !!
next.
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 02-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 02-08-2002 2:48 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 02-18-2002 3:56 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 96 by KingPenguin, posted 06-12-2002 3:26 PM Jeff has replied
 Message 183 by ex libres, posted 01-20-2004 4:47 PM Jeff has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 301 (4953)
02-18-2002 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jeff
02-18-2002 1:00 PM


Rats, and just when I was getting ready to roll out 100 million years of transitional amonites...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 02-18-2002 1:00 PM Jeff has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 301 (4960)
02-18-2002 4:42 PM


"So, how do Young Earth Creationists explain this evidence ?"
--I was hoping I wouldn't get myself in too many more topics. But what I've found is that all the transitionals that scientists would be to propose by common descent of humans is they are either apes, unusual apes, or their human. Which one doesn't fit into one of these catagories?
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-18-2002 4:53 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2002 1:58 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 11 of 301 (4964)
02-18-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 4:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So, how do Young Earth Creationists explain this evidence ?"
--I was hoping I wouldn't get myself in too many more topics. But what I've found is that all the transitionals that scientists would be to propose by common descent of humans is they are either apes, unusual apes, or their human. Which one doesn't fit into one of these catagories?

You're absolutely spot on - 100% right - totally accurate. They are indeed either apes, unusual apes, or human - that's what transitional forms are all about! And the fun part is trying to discover how they transistioned from ape / unusual ape to human.
And the conclusion is - humans, in a fundamental sense, are unusual apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:36 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 301 (4972)
02-18-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mister Pamboli
02-18-2002 4:53 PM


"You're absolutely spot on - 100% right - totally accurate. They are indeed either apes, unusual apes, or human - that's what transitional forms are all about! And the fun part is trying to discover how they transistioned from ape / unusual ape to human.
And the conclusion is - humans, in a fundamental sense, are unusual apes."
--So which ones are their that claim to be transitionals? We can discuss them, and the unusual apes, my argument would end up being somewhere along the lines, of they couldn't be transitional because they are 'too' different, ie, they are unique and unable to cope with the theory on Human evolution.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-18-2002 4:53 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 6:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 6:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 301 (4989)
02-18-2002 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 5:36 PM


Given you are addressing evidence you have not seen, how do you know what your response would be? Reminder, this is a scientific discussion. You might also want to check out the thread I brought up concerning the molecular evidence for primate evolution. Do you know what your response will be for that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:36 PM TrueCreation has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 301 (4991)
02-18-2002 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 5:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You're absolutely spot on - 100% right - totally accurate. They are indeed either apes, unusual apes, or human - that's what transitional forms are all about! And the fun part is trying to discover how they transistioned from ape / unusual ape to human.
And the conclusion is - humans, in a fundamental sense, are unusual apes."
--So which ones are their that claim to be transitionals? We can discuss them, and the unusual apes, my argument would end up being somewhere along the lines, of they couldn't be transitional because they are 'too' different, ie, they are unique and unable to cope with the theory on Human evolution.

How would be being between one form & another too different?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:59 PM mark24 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 301 (4994)
02-18-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
02-18-2002 6:55 PM


"How would be being between one form & another too different?"
--Because the difference that would be present, may be too much for the theory to cope with, mabye through examples we would take it into more consideration. They just may be another type of ape, for instance, not a transitional.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 6:55 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 7:05 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 18 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 7:12 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 21 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 9:57 PM TrueCreation 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