Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 223 (341077)
08-18-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Percy
08-18-2006 10:45 AM


Re: That which has not evolved.
I'm sorry, I wasn't really speaking of the Coelacanth. There are 1000's of discovered animals, that were once thought to be extinct quite some time ago that do not have any observable changes, many of them being millions of years old. It seems illogical to think that all these observable changes supposedly occured from a common ancestor to homo sapiens in a shorter time than these million year old animals, such as Limulus polyphemus(horseshoe crab)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 1:14 PM Chuteleach has replied
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-18-2006 1:28 PM Chuteleach has not replied
 Message 199 by Brad McFall, posted 08-18-2006 1:40 PM Chuteleach has not replied
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 1:52 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 223 (341078)
08-18-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 1:09 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
quote:
It seems illogical to think that all these observable changes supposedly occured from a common ancestor to homo sapiens in a shorter time than these million year old animals, such as Limulus polyphemus(horseshoe crab)
Why is this illogical?
At any rate, are you sure that the known fossil specimens of horseshoe crabs are the same species as the modern ones? I suspect, like the Coelecanth, that there are probably some differences.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 1:09 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 9:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 198 of 223 (341083)
08-18-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 1:09 PM


Lithodid-Man needed on aisle....
The member you want to watch for on this specific issue is Lithodid-Man. He will be happy to expound on horseshoe crabs.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 1:09 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5120 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 199 of 223 (341084)
08-18-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 1:09 PM


is a crab a bracket? or did id Evolve??
It may be illogical if the word "resolved" circumscribed below IS NOT because the polytomies spatially cross a temporal actuality restricting the attribution to Wanger and Erwin further. I do not know that this has even be theoretically supposed anywhere in the literature.
quote:
quotes from Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory on the pages indicated
Edited by Brad McFall, : spellIng

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 1:09 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 200 of 223 (341089)
08-18-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 1:09 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
First, as others have said, the species extant today are not the same species as millions of years ago. If you want to focus on something specific, such as horseshoe crabs, then we could do this, but keep in mind that horseshoe crabs is a class, not a species. Though the class of horseshoe crabs is very ancient, specific horseshoe crabs species alive today are not.
Second, even if you did find a modern species that appeared the same today as millions of years ago, the fact remains that without ancient DNA samples you simply cannot make the statement that the DNA is unchanged between millions of years ago and today. Our expectation would be that the non-coding portions of the DNA would pick up random genetic changes at a relatively constant rate, but without ancient DNA samples this cannot be checked directly. However, comparisons of non-coding regions of DNA of species across a broad spectrum of relatedness supports this view. It is familiarly known as the molecular clock.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 1:09 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3685 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 201 of 223 (341101)
08-18-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mr_matrix
05-27-2006 6:58 PM


Re: Speculations
mr matrix writes:
The Camberian explosion has established more than 60 different phyla. This means tens of thousands of species that exploded into life fully formed.[....]
Your entire post makes a bit much of the word 'explosion.' The word only applies in the context of geologic time. In this event a variety of new species appear in the fossil record in the relatively short time span, geologicaly speaking, of around 40 million years. That's still 40 times the amount of time the human species has been on this earth--and unspeakably vast, please note, compared to the amount of time Young Earth Creationism allows for anything. The event is not an instantaneous, miraculous Ta-da! It just happens to be an extremely fertile moment--all multiple million years of it--in earth history.

Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mr_matrix, posted 05-27-2006 6:58 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 223 (341199)
08-18-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Chiroptera
08-18-2006 1:14 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
No, i think you don't understand what i'm saying. We have lots of fossils of horseshoe crabs, and we have live ones that match the fossils. Now sure, there could be changes in the DNA, but humans look different than their supposed ancestors. (according to the theory of evolution) Now, the time between humans and their ancestors is much shorter than the time between the million year old horseshoe crab, and the ones alive today. Wouldn't you think they would have some sort of OBSERVABLE change that we wouldn't need DNA testing to see? Thats the only way evolutionists use fossils as "transitional evidence" anyways.
Edited by Chuteleach, : Added information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 1:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 9:54 PM Chuteleach has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 223 (341205)
08-18-2006 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 9:33 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
quote:
Wouldn't you think they would have some sort of OBSERVABLE change that we wouldn't need DNA testing to see?
I don't understand what you mean here. Of course there are observable differences between contemporary and ancient horseshoe crabs. That is why paleaontologists put then in different genera.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 9:33 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 10:23 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 8:48 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 204 of 223 (341209)
08-18-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mr_matrix
05-27-2006 6:58 PM


Re: Speculations
The Camberian explosion has established more than 60 different phyla. This means tens of thousands of species that exploded into life fully formed.
I'm not sure where you got this misconception. The Cambrian explosion constitutes less than 25 different phyla, which together represent only 1500 different species known to exist in the Cambrian time period.
No "60 plyla", no "tens of thousands of species." The Cambrian "explosion" was merely the development of a few phyla containing a few hundred species each. That diversity expanded over time to the billions of species we observe today.
If you say the Camberian explosion is invalid, how can 60 phyla emerge in a very short time period (geologically speaking) and fully formed and independent of each other with no evolutionary ancestral species?
It's not that they had no ancestral species; obviously they must have had ancestors. They simply had ancestors that could not easily fossilize - the Cambrian is the earliest time that we see hard-shelled organisms.
I doubt that you have family records dating beyond a few generations. Certainly you don't have a photograph of any of your family members from before, say, 1800. Are we supposed to conclude that none of your ancestors before 1800 had faces? That the Mr.Matrix family springs into existence "fully formed" sometime after 1800?
Or, knowing that organisms are almost always born of other organisms, isn't it much more reasonable to simply conclude that you have ancestors that we simply don't know anything about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mr_matrix, posted 05-27-2006 6:58 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 223 (341213)
08-18-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Chiroptera
08-18-2006 9:54 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
They have found horseshoe crabs that have exactly the same phenotype

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 9:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 10:33 PM Chuteleach has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 223 (341217)
08-18-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 10:23 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
quote:
They have found horseshoe crabs that have exactly the same phenotype [emphasis added]
I doubt it, since exactly the same phenotype would involve looking at the soft body as well as the hard skeleton, which would not have been preserved.
But even assuming that you mean that the preserved external hard skeleton is exactly the same as one of the four contemporary species (although you neglected to mention which one of the four), that is interesting news indeed. Do you have a cite for the journal where the discoverers reported their find?
Edited by Chiroptera, : missing dBCode tag

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 10:23 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by obvious Child, posted 08-18-2006 10:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 210 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 9:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 207 of 223 (341222)
08-18-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Chiroptera
08-18-2006 10:33 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Not to mention that the modern horsecrabs may and probably are producing more efficent hormones then their ancestors. They probably have a different genotype. Not to mention that they may have different growth cycles, which is probably true given the changing temperature of the ancient oceans. A different growth cycle is a different species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 10:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 223 (341323)
08-19-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Chiroptera
08-18-2006 9:54 PM


No, i think you don't understand what i'm saying. We have lots of fossils of horseshoe crabs, and we have live ones that match the fossils. Now sure, there could be changes in the DNA, but humans look different than their supposed ancestors. (according to the theory of evolution) Now, the time between humans and their ancestors is much shorter than the time between the million year old horseshoe crab, and the ones alive today.
Evolution doesn't happen just 'cos time passes (well, apart from boring old neutral drift). Adaptive evolution happens because there's a selective pressure acting on the variation in the gene pool. If you think that some lineage of horseshoe crabs should have evolved into something else --- then what? And how? Into what vacant niche?
By contrast, in the case of humans the origin of grasslands opened up a niche in which adaptation for bipedalism was advantageous ('cos in open country it allows you to see further: it is interesting to note that even monkeys will adopt a bipedal posture when they come down from the trees into open spaces.) There is your vacant niche: it was certain that some animals would adapt to living on the savanahs. See for example Bobe andBehrensmeyer, "The expansion of grassland ecosystems in Africa in relation to mammalial evolution and the origin of the genus Homo", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 207: 399-420. (2004).
Our lineage faced a new environment, a new challenge, and a new set of selective pressures when Africa dried and the jungles shrank. Horseshoe crabs did not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 9:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2006 10:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 209 of 223 (341343)
08-19-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2006 8:48 AM


bones of contention?
Not to nitpick, but ... (opens small toolkit ...)
By contrast, in the case of humans the origin of grasslands opened up a niche in which adaptation for bipedalism was advantageous ('cos in open country it allows you to see further: it is interesting to note that even monkeys will adopt a bipedal posture when they come down from the trees into open spaces.)
There is evidence that bipedal gait predates the savannah transition -- that hominids were able to take advantage of the niche because they were pre-adapted to standing and walking:
Chimp-sized hominid walked upright on two leg | EurekAlert!
Chimp-sized hominid walked upright on two legs six million years ago
Recent fossil evidence suggests that a hominid, the size of a chimp, walked upright on two legs in Kenya's Tugen Hills, over 6 million years ago --- about 3 million years earlier than "Lucy," the most famous early biped in our lineage.
Eckhardt says, "In present day chimps and gorillas, the thicknesses in the upper and lower parts of that bone are approximately equal. In modern humans, the bone on top is thinner than on the bottom by a ratio of one to four or more. The ratio in this fossil is one to three."
and
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/10_18_97/fob1.htm
According to their new fossil analysis, a 9-million- to 7-million-year-old apelike animal also spent much of its time standing upright, methodically shuffling short distances to collect fruit and other edible goodies on what was once a Mediterranean island.
There were quite possibly a number or hominids or pre-hominids that had bipedal gaits for a number of reasons (one being that they could do it and carry things). Also, like your example of monkeys, the Bonobos (pygmy chimp) lives in the forest and often uses a bipedal gait to walk on the ground.
The savannah transition occurred over several million years and was not a constant trendency (there is also an apparent 20,000 year solar cycle of rain intensity). For long periods there were areas of savannah and areas of forest, and it appears that the early hominids took advantage of both:
Whoops! Page Not Found | Discovery
Fossils Show Chimps, Humans Co-Existed
Unearthed in the Rift Valley, East Africa, in a sediment of the Kapthurin Formation, a region by the shores of Kenya's Lake Baringo, the chimp fossils consist of three teeth ” two incisors and a molar ” probably belonging to the same individual, a chimp that lived a half a million years ago.
As well as providing new insight into the evolution of chimps, the landmark discovery shatters the widespread belief that humans and chimps did not coexist since they diverged from a common ancestor five to eight million years ago.
The researchers found startling evidence of the cohabitation as they unearthed fossils attributed to Homo erectus or Homo rhodesiensis in the same geologic layer less than a mile away.
Since modern chimp populations are now confined to wooded west and central Africa, whereas most hominid fossils have been found in the semi-arid East African Rift Valley, it has been long speculated that ancient chimps and humans diverged from their common ancestor when hominids left the jungles and moved east to the less wooded grasslands.
McBrearty and Jablonski also found fossilized remains of fish, hippopotami, crocodiles, turtles, gastropods and other moisture-loving animals.
The remains would suggest that 500,000 years ago that chimps and ancient Homo inhabited a wet, wooded area surrounding a lake.
Thus pre-adapted bipedal hominids could have "home-based" in a forested area and forayed into the savannah for opportunistic finds that would not have been available to thier chimpanzee cousins.
Also see Feeding Ecology andHuman Evolution (click) especially "The place of the Savannah biome in human evolution" (click) and A Changing Climate for Human Evolution (click) for a couple of different perspectives on this old "savannah" concept.
That last paper implies that we became bipedal not to walk on the savannah, but to become more efficient killers of larger animals (using sticks and stones and broken bones).
It wasn't a matter of being "forced" - hominids took advantage of the opportunity because they could, while chimps did not because they couldn't.
(puts away nit-pick kit)
On another note:
As far as various species being "unchanging over time" and linking this to no DNA change, we are seeing the African Elephant being reclassified into two species, one forest and one savannah, due to the genetic and behavior evidence even though they appear the same.
Just a moment...
Once a species diverges into two non-interbreeding groups there is nothing to prevent accumulated mutations from occurring within each group that do not occur (and are not transmited by interbreeding) in the other group.
However, if there is no natural selection pressure for the organism to change, then the statis trendencies will counter the genetic drift trendencies -- if the organism doesn't need to adapt it will stay essentially the same.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 8:48 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 223 (341535)
08-19-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Chiroptera
08-18-2006 10:33 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 10:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 9:42 PM Chuteleach has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024