Transitional Fossils

[Jose]

Creationists seem to claim that no transitional fossils have been found, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Evolutionists claim to have found very many of them. What's going on?

1. What is a transitional fossil?
2. What would one look like?
3. What are your criteria for coming to these conclusions?

I've put in the last question as an afterthought. It might help us resolve differences in our definitions.

[ENIGMA]

Using your war analogy...when Gould said the following:

...The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard Univ.), Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24

You probablly feel I cropped it from a statement from Gould like the following:

The fossil record with its abundant transistions offers support for gradual change. Paleontologists know that the fossil record contains many in the way of intermediate forms: transitions between major groups are characteristally abundant. (of course Gould didnt say this did he)

Lets find out...

Quote the surrounding paragraphs to that statement, if you please.

If you are unable to do so, then by all means let us know where you happened to get that little snippet from.

[anchorman]

Enigma

"Stephen Jay Gould complains creationists misuse his quotes about the lack of transitions: "[t]his quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose--to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution."
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1232

This quote proves my point. I only listed quotes to show a lack of transitions in the fossil record. It would have been dishonest of my to post a quote mine and then say "see these people dont believe in evolution"
But I didnt say that did I? But several on this thread have missed the obvious point. Gould did say that the fossil record lacks transistions. If you or Nyril or Glaudys want to argue with someone..argue with Gould not me.

[keltzkroz]

Hi people! I would like to post a question here that is somewhat related. I was waiting for someone to start a thread on it somewhere, but here is my question anyway, which is about animal evolution. My reference/source for what I have written is ‘Rare Earth’ by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

It is interesting that virtually all animal phyla that we know of appeared no later that the Cambrian and none (none that we know of) appeared since that time. Though the fossil record shows abundant evidence for the enormous diversification of species, it is puzzling that no new phyla that we know of appeared since then (500 to 600 million years ago). Why is this? Take note that the advent of metazoan evolution was about 1 billion to 600 million years ago, with evolution from the advent of life (3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago) to that period (1 billion to 600 million years ago) featuring very little morphological change. Theories range from environmental causes like the ‘Snowball Earth’ events or the ‘Inertial Interchange’ event, to biological causes, like the advent of predation.

[Jose]

Let's do a thought experiment. Start with a string of 26 A's. Duplicate it, but with one mutation (turn an A into a different letter).

Let me extend this thought experiment. Let's start with an entire book composed of letters. The entire book has a logical theme and is readable in one language. Let's randomly change letters in the book to create new books. Let's discard the books that does not make sense. Given sufficient time, an entirely new book will be created that has a different theme. I think this is more on the level with what evolution needs to explain.

Ah, I see the issue. What I suggested is a linear sequence of change, from which one can see how one "kind" can become modified to a different "kind." We can use it to illustrate a pattern of changes, but we cannot illustrate that the changes lead us anywhere useful.

On the other hand, converting one book into another is quite different. First, unlike actual evolution, it has a goal. That goal is: words, spelled correctly, in a specific sequence. These are serious constraints. The evolutionary analog would be changing one existing species--say, a human--into a different existing species--say, an oak tree. In both the book example and the human/oak example, there is no easy way to imagine how an intermediate, in between the starting point and the end goal, could be viable.

But, evolution didn't create oak trees by modifying humans. Writers don't create new books by starting with existing books, and changing the letters. A better analogy for the book would be to start with one word, then create a bunch of mutations (by adding another word, to make two-word entities). From among all of those mutant two-word combinations, select two that work. In this case, "working" would have to be "can be logically found next to each other in a sentence." In the case of a simple organism (common ancestor of humans and oaks), "working" would be "surviving and having offspring."

If we continue "mutating" our word sequences, selecting at each generation for word combinations that "work," we will eventually be able to create sentences, paragraphs, and books. That is, the two final books are different, but came about by slight modifications to a common ancestor. There was no change from one finished book to the other finished book.

Similarly, humans didn't mutate into oak trees. A simple, single-celled organism had offspring, some of which carried mutations. Some mutations were selected for in one set of environmental conditions, and others were selected for in other environmental conditions. Each of these new-ish variants had offspring, and again there were mutations, some of which were selected for. In the end, we came out with what we happen to have now.

I would suggest resurrecting the The scientific method applied to the theory of Evolution thread. Also, it would be nice if the technical stuff could get simplified so that mortals could grasp the concept. I think that was the problem with the Polonium Haloes thread, it just got way too over peoples' heads too quickly. Well, at least for me it did.

It probably is a good idea to resurrect that thread. It does seem that many creationists believe that science has ignored scientific methods in coming to its conclusions about common descent. This probably results from the plethora of out-of-context quotes and misconceptions that have been developing a life of their own on the internet and elsewhere. We've tried to address some of the issues in these various threads, but doing so separates them into many different locations.

I'm glad, I think, to hear you say that the Polonium Haloes thread was too complex. I'd suspected it was. The trouble is that the complexity is essential, because its proponent, Robert Gentry, relies upon that complexity to build the argument. It cannot be addressed without equal complexity. Maybe this is an important issue: the science is complex, while the common-sense arguments against it are not. This makes it really hard to address the issues, because the scientific replies to logical arugments always sound tortured (and always require more background to get to the bottom of 'em).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why does it do my credibility "no good" when all I have done is show that countless scientists most of them evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show the gradual changes that evolution requires in order to go from a single cell organism to life we see today? I never said that they disprove evolution

Nyril has answered this, but I will add my own thoughts. First, it is possible to count the number of quotes you gave us. To call them "countless" misrepresents the facts. Second, while it is true that you might not have said they disprove evolution, you did use them in a stream of logic whose purpose was to disprove evolution. After all, you did say that transitional fossils "don't exist" and offered your out-of-context quotes as if they were proof of your statement's veracity. They are not, in fact, such proof. The issue is much more complex than you seem to acknowledge.

You also conclude in this particular statement that "evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show the gradual changes that evolution requires" when, in fact, it shows a great many. I fear, however, as I noted above to otseng, that the science is complex and requires some background to follow it, while your "common-sense" view is much easier to see. Look back at what gluadys has said: there are a number of gradual series that have been found, thereby justifying the expectation that such gradual change should occur. Gluadys also gave you the explanation for many of the statements you quoted: that the gradual series of fossils can only occur in the locale in which the gradual series actually happened, prior to migration of the new form into other areas.

You must realize, I'm sure, that evolution doesn't occur by having every individual in a population go through the same changes at the same time. That would be magic. What happens is that one individual is born with a variation that is advantageous, and that individual has more offspring because of it. Over a number of generations, the percentage of individuals with that variation increases. The question to ask, when wondering where the gradual sequence of fossils might be, is "where was that one individual born?"

If that individual is in a small population, then it is much more likely that its advantageous characteristics will spread through the whole population--just because there aren't as many other variants to out-compete as there would be in a large population. This simple logic applies to any new mutation, and explains partly why speciation events often occur in small, isolated populations. Then, as gluadys pointed out, when the new species migrate into the regions where the larger, unchanged population is, well, now you have a new species with no local examples of the intermediates.

So, do your "countless" quotes actually show that gradual variation never occurs, or that fossils demonstrating gradual variation have never been found? No. Their authors were presenting the background for explanations for what might actually have happened. The "hopeful monster" idea looks to be incorrect; we now understand that things work differently. So, why bring up the quotes about it, except to make noise? It not an issue. The concept of everything changing simultaneously is incorrect, so why bring up quotes from people who are puzzled by the fact that the fossil record doesn't show it?

Instead, why not look for the quotes that describe what we currently understand, and that address the current theory?

Where? Give a convincing example. I want to see a whole range of these new features.

If you like, you can go to the Turkana Basin and dig up your own series of brachiopods. Or look up Eldredge's papers on his trilobites, or visit his laboratory and examine the specimens directly. There are several options. Gluadys gave you some good examples. All you have to do is look them up. If you don't like the summaries, go to the original literature. If that's not enough, go to the collections and speak to the people involved.

But, back to the original question. Your first statement here was that transitional fossils simply don't exist. That's not the focus of this thread. The question for debate is: what would they look like? How can you say they don't exist, if you don't know what they should look like, and therefore, you can't assess whether any particular fossil is, or is not, transitional? You begged the question with your quote mine, so let's get back to it. What should a transitional fossil look like?

[Jose]

Because the way in which you've chosen to do it makes you dishonest.

Nyril:
you have dishonestly represented what I have claimed which makes you not only dishonest but also a hypocrit.

anchorman and Nyril: I'll step in here as moderator and say that we aren't here to call each other dishonest or hyporcrits. We're here to debate the actual information and its interpretation. Let's stick with the arguments about the arguments, and leave off the insinuations and direct attacks.

Unfortunately, that makes it harder to debate...but that's the way it is.

I'll offer my view on the quote-mining issue, if it helps. There are a great many creationists (no, I can't define "a great many") who mine quotes to imply (sometimes with direct statements that evolutionists are dishonest) that evolution simply cannot be true, and that evolutionists simply have no evidence to back up what they say. As you know, many of these quotes are taken of context; the message was actually quite different. Nyril's example is valid, and represents the technique, if an extreme form of it. Because of the history of dishonesty to this technique, no one is surprised to hear Nyril suggest that your motive, anchorman, is the same. It's guilt by association, which may be invalid, but is nevertheless a logical inference. It's probably a better debate technique, Nyril, to point out the talk.origins quote mine project, and simply ask the miner what they are trying to say. After all, most of the quotes are ancient history, or out of context, and thus technically irrelevant to current understanding.

Let's get back to discussion of the actual evidence. It's much more interesting.

[Jose]

Hi people! I would like to post a question here that is somewhat related. I was waiting for someone to start a thread on it somewhere, but here is my question anyway, which is about animal evolution. My reference/source for what I have written is ‘Rare Earth’ by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

It is interesting that virtually all animal phyla that we know of appeared no later that the Cambrian and none (none that we know of) appeared since that time. Though the fossil record shows abundant evidence for the enormous diversification of species, it is puzzling that no new phyla that we know of appeared since then (500 to 600 million years ago). Why is this? Take note that the advent of metazoan evolution was about 1 billion to 600 million years ago, with evolution from the advent of life (3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago) to that period (1 billion to 600 million years ago) featuring very little morphological change. Theories range from environmental causes like the ‘Snowball Earth’ events or the ‘Inertial Interchange’ event, to biological causes, like the advent of predation.

We have a thread on The Cambrian Explosion. I think we've covered much of the topic, so it might be worthwhile to read through what's there. You'll certainly have more concerns, so add a post to that thread and wake it up again. It may be that your question is more in the line of "why haven't really new body plans developed" rather than "what's the deal with the apparently-sudden appearance of things in the Cambrian," but it's sufficiently related that I think it's a good extension to what we've discussed in that thread. Cheers!

[gluadys]

Glaudys

Why does it do my credibility "no good" when all I have done is show that countless scientists most of them evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show the gradual changes that evolution requires in order to go from a single cell organism to life we see today? I never said that they disprove evolution

It does your credibility no good because you are using mined quotes which are deliberately extracted from the source in such as way as to imply something the author did not intend. I realize you didn't do the extracting personally. These "gems" are all over the internet. That is why I referred you to the Quote Mine Project, so you could see for yourself how the original meaning has been mangled by the professional quote miners which you have cited.

Even Gould admitted this (the most influential evolutionist of in the last 30 years). This is exactly why he developed his theory of "puncuated equilibium" I never said he or any of these scientists quoted gave up on evolution. Many are out spoken evolutionist today or many took their beliefs to the grave.

Actually, if you read more of Gould's original work---as I have---you will find his position much more nuanced.

It does your credibility no good to say that I am "dishonest" When you make silly assumptions based on your own Bias.

I did not say you were dishonest. I asked you to refrain from using a dishonest tactic. Many people use mined quotes in innocence of what they are and of what the original context really says. Again I refer you to the Quote Mine Project for more info.

At any rate:

Glaudys wrote:

"1.The rate of evolution can happen quickly--quickly enough that significant transitions may not be caught in the fossil record. It does not say that all evolutionary transitions are rapid however, but that both gradualistic and punctuated scenarios occur."

Define rapid transitions?

The definition will depend on the species and generational time and intensity of environmental pressure. One mathematical calculation showed that beginning with a mammal the size of a mouse, allowing a conservative 1% increase in average size per generation and a generational turnover of 5 years (much longer than for a mouse, but shorter than most large animals) the mammal would be the size of an elephant within 100,000 years. That is extremely rapid from an evolutionary point of view and could easily leave nothing at all in a geological column. Such rates have also been observed in experiment. Breeders regularly transform dogs or pigeons into quite different forms within decades. A recent example is the transforming of a wild silver fox species into a tame species which not only acts like a border collie, but looks like one. Even though no deliberate selection was made for appearance. That took 20 years. A five year experiment with fruit flies produced seven new species including two which no longer ate fruit, but either bread or meat. A new species of salmon has appeared in the same stream as its parent within 70 years. (This was straight observation, not experimentation.) The speciation occurred through behavioural difference as one group changed its nesting place. I have a referenced list of 50 similar examples. There are plenty more in the scientific literature.

"2. Rapid evolution is most likely to occur in small isolated populations, while large populations are more likely to remain in an equilibrium that encourages stasis."

This has been observed frequently. Besides punctuated equilibrium it is also the basis of evolution by genetic drift. You can check for more examples in the links I gave you or by doing a search on the term "genetic drift".

4. If one is fortunate to find the area in which the isolated population did evolve its new features, one will find the whole range of small, gradual Darwinian transitions, all in the same temporally narrow bedding plane.

Where? Give a convincing example. I want to see a whole range of these new features.

As Nyril said, go to the peer-reviewed journals and check out the actual papers of Eldredge on trilobites and Gould on the Burgess Shale fossils.

they simply said that they admitted the fossil record is absent of the transitional fossils.

They admitted no such thing. I defy you to find an actual quote in context in which either of them says there are no transitional fossils. I have two collections of Gould's essays at home and one of Eldredge's books. I can assure you that both of them discuss fossils which they deem to be transitional.

Eldredge, whose speciality was trilobites, actually found a species of trilobite that followed exactly this pattern. It began as a small isolated population. In its region, it underwent rapid evolution---not through a single quantum leap---but through a series of small changes accumulating quickly on top of each other. Then the new species began migrating out of its niche and displacing other trilobite species. In those areas there are no examples of the transitional fossils--just an apparent leap from one species to another.

No transitional fossils found...Hmm...I have been told by several evolutionist on this board that evolution doesnt make leaps and that modern day genetics can show that they are not necessary.

Now you are personally engaging in quote mining. The full sentence says "In those areas there are no examples of the transitional fossils---just an apparent leap from one species to another.

What areas? Those into which the new species migrated as explained earlier in the paragraph.

How do you get a general statement of "no transitionals" out of that except by refusing to look at the context?

So let me get this straight. Gould says that the fossil record is inadequate to demonstrate that small gradual changes account for all of lifes diversity. So he develops a theory of "Punctuated equilibrium" where ocassionaly evolution makes a giant leap.

No, he didn't say that either. He is often misquoted as supporting saltationism of the "hopeful monster" type. But that is a misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium. He has always maintained that small Darwinian changes are the only way species change. What he has disputed is that the small changes must occur at the same rate throughout a species whole history. He contends, and I believe correctly, that sometimes the changes are much more rapid than at other times.

He has not promoted giant leaps instead of baby steps. He just says the baby steps can occur quickly as well as slowly. Anyone who has read Gould's own writings would not make this error of interpretation. But anyone who only reads mined quotes could not help but come to this erroneous conclusion.

Gluadys....This may shock you but I do believe in evolution.

And this may shock you. I believe in creation and in a wonderful God who created this entire universe full of amazing things.

The problem I have is I dont believe for a minute that the experiments and discoveries made by science that demonstrate how small changes can occur can be extrapolated with out proof to show all life evolved from a common ancestor using minor changes as the primary mechanism.

Yes, it is a problem that you don't believe this. But as Darwin said about the eye "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

The shortcomings of your imagination really don't form any insuperable barrier to the actions of natural selection. You will have to find more convincing evidence of why a succession of minor changes would not lead to major change.

With years of mutating bacteria, fruitflys, moths etc. Scientists have simulated millions of years of evolution and regardless of the changes to those organisms they are still left with moths, bacteria and fruitflys. This is evidence against the discovered minor changes and the mechanisms that cause those changes...being used to extrapolate outward and show how all life evolved.

Why? What makes this evidence that over a longer period of time greater changes would be seen?

I will finish with one other question that gets us back on topic.

Has it ever occurred to you that your problem with evolution is one of faulty visualization? Perhaps you are expecting from evolution results it does not predict. If so, it is not surprising that you don't find them.

So, just what are you looking for in a transitional fossil? Science points to many fossils it refers to as transitional and gives reason for saying they are transitional.

What are you looking for that you don't find in these?

[gluadys]

Hi people! I would like to post a question here that is somewhat related.

keltzkroz: Do you intend to follow jose's suggestion and re-post your question in the Cambrian thread? If you do, I will give you an answer there.

[keltzkroz]

keltzkroz: Do you intend to follow jose's suggestion and re-post your question in the Cambrian thread? If you do, I will give you an answer there.

I will re-post in the Cambrian thread. I dont know how I missed that, but thanks! I hope I will not be accused of spamming!

[otseng]

On the other hand, converting one book into another is quite different. First, unlike actual evolution, it has a goal. That goal is: words, spelled correctly, in a specific sequence.

The mutating book example would not necessarily have a goal. The letters that would be changed would be purely random. The selection process would simply allow books that have meaning to continue to exist. Whereas books that have nonsensical words would be discarded. I think having a readable book would similar to a mutated organism that can survive.

The evolutionary analog would be changing one existing species--say, a human--into a different existing species--say, an oak tree.

I'm not suggesting the the mutating book would have to go from a "Dick and Jane" to a "War and Peace" in one step. Rather, it would be many iterations of mutations/selections with many intermediate books in between.

In both the book example and the human/oak example, there is no easy way to imagine how an intermediate, in between the starting point and the end goal, could be viable.

I would agree. But isn't this what common descent is asserting?

A better analogy for the book would be to start with one word, then create a bunch of mutations (by adding another word, to make two-word entities).

However, I would argue that the first organism's level of information would even exceed any book in existence. So, it should actually probably start off on the level of an encyclopedic set instead of a single word.

It does seem that many creationists believe that science has ignored scientific methods in coming to its conclusions about common descent. This probably results from the plethora of out-of-context quotes and misconceptions that have been developing a life of their own on the internet and elsewhere.

Could be true. All of the information that is available to me has not provided a convincing argument for many points of evolution. And this information is not limited to creationist sources either, but many evolutionary sources. I would welcome exposure to the modern scientific findings on the evidence for evolution and be willing to explore them if brought up here.

Maybe this is an important issue: the science is complex, while the common-sense arguments against it are not.

I would agree. In almost any professional field, it can get quite complex. The challenge is to make the information accessible and at least conceptually understandable to the layman. I believe that for most fields, it should at least be partially attainable.