Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any unexplained branches of evolution?
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 35 (107281)
05-10-2004 10:45 PM


Missing links?
Are there any known organisms for whom their ancestries in the fossil record are largely incomplete? I realize that between any two related fossil organisms, there is probably a missing link between them, but are there any species which evolved to a great degree without leaving a record that people have found yet?
To clarify, there are transitional fossils between say, Hydracotherium, a small horse-like creature, and modern horses. Similarly, there are transitionals between four-legged mammals and whales, and between dinosaurs and birds. Are there any large gaps, seemingly unrecorded in the fossil record, that scientists can only guess about?
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-10-2004 09:48 PM
This message has been edited by Gary, 05-10-2004 09:49 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 12:17 AM Gary has not replied
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 1:03 AM Gary has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 35 (107282)
05-10-2004 10:50 PM


I deleted the original paragraph about which forum to use. Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Gary, I see that we submitted new edits at almost the same time. There may have been a clash. I hope I have not lost changes you had proposed...
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-10-2004 09:52 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Gary, posted 05-10-2004 10:56 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 35 (107284)
05-10-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminSylas
05-10-2004 10:50 PM


No, don't worry about it. I just changed an "or" to an "and". Thanks for moving the thread so fast!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminSylas, posted 05-10-2004 10:50 PM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 05-10-2004 11:04 PM Gary has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 35 (107287)
05-10-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Gary
05-10-2004 10:56 PM


The origins of bats are very poorly documented by fossils, as I understand it. That shouldn't be too surprising if the ancestors were small, light-boned forest dwellers. There are bunches of invertebrates with almost no fossil record, too, but I'm trying to figure out where I read about examples. (The memory is the second thing to go.....)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Gary, posted 05-10-2004 10:56 PM Gary has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 35 (107299)
05-10-2004 11:56 PM


...
A small-horse like creature to modern horses? Its still a horse! nothing changed. Just natural selection within the already present information..4 legged mammals to whales???..Are we talking about Pakicetus & Ambulocetus? I recall reading that there was only found a few bone fragments and pieces here and there but was bloated in a transition of whales etc. The legs and arms were pure imagination if i recall.. Dinasaurs and birds? Highly dubious. Cold blood to warm blooded is not an easy task i can tell ya.. Yes there is plenty that scientist must guess!. But dont worry puntuacted quilibrium makes up for all that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 12:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 2:50 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 8:59 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2004 10:58 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 35 (107302)
05-11-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:56 PM


almeyda
suppose some of the dinosaurs were warm blooded? Would it surprise you to know that many dinosaurs were warm blooded? And dinosaurs taste just like Chicken.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:56 PM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 35 (107304)
05-11-2004 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
05-10-2004 10:45 PM


Re: Missing links?
Much of the missing fossil record is due to the fact that things don't get fossilized as much in the acidic environments of the rain forests. That's why a lot of the hominoid record is still missing. Our ancestors were tree dwellers.
We also have trouble putting together stuff a record of stuff that live in water. Sharks, for one thing, only leave behind their teeth.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 05-10-2004 10:45 PM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2004 12:44 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:45 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 35 (107309)
05-11-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
05-11-2004 12:17 AM


Re: Missing links?
This is the problem of trying to use an absence of evidence as evidence of absense, and it doesn't work. For instance we know that there is no fossil evidence of coelecanth for 65 million years.
http://www.dinofish.com/
The problem is that fossils are rare.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 12:17 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5259 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 35 (107313)
05-11-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
05-10-2004 10:45 PM


Re: Missing links?
Gary writes:
Are there any known organisms for whom their ancestries in the fossil record are largely incomplete? ...
Yes. It is very common to have simply enormous gaps in the record.
For example, the fossil record for bats is very poor. They are delicate, and do not fossilize easily. See Chiroptera: Fossil Record at the excellent Museum of Paleontology (UC Berkeley). Extract:
Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats.
There are some fossils, and the page goes on to describe them.
An even more extreme example (for obvious reasons) is the fossil record of jellyfish. See Scyphozoa: Fossil Record, also at UCMP. Extract:
Scyphozoans are extremely rare as fossils; their soft bodies, which are composed mostly of water, can only be preserved under very unusual conditions. A few possible but poorly known scyphozoans have been described from the Vendian (Late Precambrian), and scattered scyphozoan fossils are known throughout the Phanerozoic. Shown here, from the collections of the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt, Germany, is a specimen of Rhizostomites from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of Bavaria, Germany, a body of rock which has yielded many fossils of exceptional preservation.
There are many other similar examples, and also cases of fossils in the record for which we have little idea of what they might be related to, either before or after. I don't have any examples immediately.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 05-10-2004 10:45 PM Gary has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 35 (107335)
05-11-2004 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
05-11-2004 12:17 AM


Re: Missing links?
But doesnt evolutionists constantly refer to the fossil record as the evolutionary chain etc?. They say that it shows gradual evolution and transition etc. What are they basing this on?..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 12:17 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 2:48 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 2:49 AM almeyda has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 35 (107336)
05-11-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:45 AM


Re: Missing links?
almeyda writes:
But doesnt evolutionists constantly refer to the fossil record as the evolutionary chain etc?. They say that it shows gradual evolution and transition etc. What are they basing this on?..
I didn't say all records are incomplete. I said some records are incomplete because of natural complications. We do have some records that are very close to being complete... or at least that's what they think.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:45 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 35 (107337)
05-11-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:45 AM


They say that it shows gradual evolution and transition etc. What are they basing this on?..
The fact that, for a number of species, there's a very clear record of descendancy through many transitional forms.
There's just not such a clear record for every species, and why would there be? Fossilization is rare. For instance, at one point, there were over one billion passenger pidgeons. How many passenger pidgeon fossils are there? Zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:45 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:51 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 15 by coffee_addict, posted 05-11-2004 2:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 35 (107338)
05-11-2004 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:56 PM


Re: ...
almeyda writes:
A small-horse like creature to modern horses? Its still a horse! nothing changed.
Actually, you forgot to mention the fact that the ancient horse had an extra toe compared to the modern toe. Care to take a wild guess as to why they lost a toe?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:56 PM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:56 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 35 (107339)
05-11-2004 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
05-11-2004 2:49 AM


...
How do they know there was billion passenger pidgeons if theres no record?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 2:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 3:09 AM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 35 (107341)
05-11-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
05-11-2004 2:49 AM


Fossilization is rare.
Let's not forget the dodo. If people didn't keep a record of description of these animal, noone in the world would have ever known that the dodo ever existed. No fossil. No bones. Zippo.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2004 2:49 AM crashfrog 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