Old evolution argument

[Vermillion]

Please note that this is NOT an attempt to ressurect the same argument which pops up on these forums every 6 months or so. I just wanted to pass on some information.


In these interminable Evolution/Creation debates, a common argument thrown around was the apparent lack of evolutionary 'midpoints', or transition creatures.

I was recently at an excellent exibit at the Canadian Museum of nature in which they demonstrate a whole series of these 'transition creatures' through the fossil record. Apparently they have existed all along, its just that creationists either did not know or chose not to know about them.

Among the most notable is the skeleton of the Sinornithosaurus Millenii, found in China, a flightless bird-lizard with feathers and wings used to move faster at the run. This animal holds all the charictaristic of birds, hollow bones, feathers, wings, talons, yet has not yet developed the capacity to fly. The feathers are improved padding against cold weather and the wings allow it to run faster.

This is a perfect example of the MANY of these 'transition creatures' discovered in the fossil record.


I personally found this fascinating, and anyone in the Ottawa area should really see this exibit...

[pablissimo]

Was Sinornithosaurus Millenii not later found to be a big fake? Or something similar, I don't pay much attention to all these National Geographic documentaries.

[Gayle29uk]

And for a living demonstration of 'the missing link' I now pass you over to Mr. Hicks

[Starbucks]

antidisestablishmentarianism

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by pablissimo
Was Sinornithosaurus Millenii not later found to be a big fake?

No, it is quite genuine, and even if there was any doubt, it is the fifth creature of similar kind (non-avian coelurosaur with remains of feathers or feather-like integument) found in the fossil record. This one just happens to be the one which most closely resembles birds.


There was a fossil event in 1999, the Archaoraptor, published by national Geographic for which the authenticity is under dispute, though not disproven.

This is an entirely different find.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Please note that this is NOT an attempt to ressurect the same argument which pops up on these forums every 6 months or so. I just wanted to pass on some information.

In these interminable Evolution/Creation debates, a common argument thrown around was the apparent lack of evolutionary 'midpoints', or transition creatures.

I just think evolution tends to push through those midpoints quickly.

You could have reptiles for millions of years (with little change), but as soon as one starts being able to glide some evolution will become powerful quickly. Those that are slightly better gliders will reproduce, the rest won't, etc. And in just a million years or so you will have a flying creature vastly different than what you had just a little earlier.

So I would say it is not that there aren't transition creatures, its just that it goes through transitions kinder quick like.

[W]

You missunderstand their argument Vermillion. Their argument is quite sound, it just isn't valid. All they claim is that between the fossils already found there are no known transitory creatures. It's perfectly true, it just isn't a valid argument against evolution, is all.

[Pyr0 MK III]

You are very clever Vermillion

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
All they claim is that between the fossils already found there are no known transitory creatures. It's perfectly true, it just isn't a valid argument against evolution, is all.

Why not?

If the theory doesnt make logical sense, and there isnt any real evidence to support it, why should it be accepted?

(note, im talking about macroevolution, not micro)

[Phang]

Originally posted by Vermillion
There was a fossil event in 1999, the Archaoraptor, published by national Geographic for which the authenticity is under dispute, though not disproven.

A BBC documentary about this was repeated recently.

It was a fake, but they realised it was two real fossils from similar but different transition creatures that got glued together...

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by W
You missunderstand their argument Vermillion. Their argument is quite sound, it just isn't valid. All they claim is that between the fossils already found there are no known transitory creatures.

No, I think you may have misinterpreted it, or it has multiple interpretations. The fervent Creationists say that if one creature evolved into another, then why are there no intermediate stages on record?

This is an example of one.

I did a Genetics type degree.

We studied evolution in great depth.

All the folk on my course knew about stuff like this.

One of them remained a ferverant Creationist despite it.

"It's a crazy world".

[Makain]

Originally posted by W
You missunderstand their argument Vermillion. Their argument is quite sound, it just isn't valid. All they claim is that between the fossils already found there are no known transitory creatures. It's perfectly true, it just isn't a valid argument against evolution, is all.

I don't think you can really name these creatures, transitionary creatures without a solid definition. We are all transitionary creatures to something that has not appeared yet.

TV............its evolving.....

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Why not?

If the theory doesnt make logical sense, and there isnt any real evidence to support it, why should it be accepted?

(note, im talking about macroevolution, not micro)

Originally posted by Makain
I don't think you can really name these creatures, transitionary creatures without a solid definition. We are all transitionary creatures to something that has not appeared yet.

Here Nodrog has it wrong, Makain has it all right. There's no such thing as micro/macroevolution, all species evolve all the time.

Originally posted by Vermillion
No, I think you may have misinterpreted it, or it has multiple interpretations. The fervent Creationists say that if one creature evolved into another, then why are there no intermediate stages on record?

This is an example of one.

That's pretty much the wording they've used with me ("if one species can evlve into another, where are there no fossils of creatures stuck inbetween species"), and the explanation they've given to me atleast is that every fossil so far dug out has belonged to one species. The reason this is invalid as an argument against evolution is of course that evolution agrees with them. One species does not gradually become another. Every creature that ever procreated is a member of a species, if nothing else than a species of two (itself and whatever it procreated with).

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
Here Nodrog has it wrong, Makain has it all right. There's no such thing as micro/macroevolution, all species evolve all the time.

Ive always used the term microevolution to describe evolution within a species, and macroevolution to describe one species 'evolving into another*', or a new species being created. These probably arent the correct terms, but you know what I mean.

*lol

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Ive always used the term microevolution to describe evolution within a species, and macroevolution to describe one species 'evolving into another*', or a new species being created. These probably arent the correct terms, but you know what I mean.

*lol

But when you see my explanation, how all creatures are member of a species (not that speciation is complete), where then is the macroevolution? Every single mutation or recombination of genes happens within a species. Creation of new species happen over several generations of internal change!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
But when you see my explanation, how all creatures are member of a species (not that speciation is complete), where then is the macroevolution? Every single mutation or recombination of genes happens within a species. Creation of new species happen over several generations of internal change!

But if that were the case, wouldnt transitory creatures be important? As a new species is produced gradually, wouldnt there be quite a lot of creatures at the 'in between' stages that should have been discovered?

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
But if that were the case, wouldnt transitory creatures be important? As a new species is produced gradually, wouldnt there be quite a lot of creatures at the 'in between' stages that should have been discovered?

YES!! EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL IS TRANSITORY!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
YES!! EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL IS TRANSITORY!

Doesnt that leave rather huge gaps though?

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Doesnt that leave rather huge gaps though?

Yes. If you have a set of N different points on a line, there will be N-1 gaps on that line. What, you expect evolutionists to produce a fossil of every single individual creature that ever existed?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
Yes. If you have a set of N different points on a line, there will be N-1 gaps on that line. What, you expect evolutionists to produce a fossil of every single individual creature that ever existed?

I'd expect some fossils that lie round about the midpoint between distinct species. Some with, say, half the characteristics of its 'original' species, and half the characteristics of the new species that eventually evolved. Thats what was meant by 'transitory species' in the original post.

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I'd expect some fossils that lie round about the midpoint between distinct species. Some with, say, half the characteristics of its 'original' species, and half the characteristics of the new species that eventually evolved. Thats what was meant by 'transitory species' in the original post.

No species is distinct. You're severely confused on how evolutionary theory deals with species. A species is a temporal classification; it is the separation of individuals that can't interbreed at any one point. In theory, you could stretch this into time and see whether you could produce offspring with your ancestors or offspring, but this is really ridiculous, and if you do, the species clasification is far from as clear as it is at any one point in time. There is never a separation point between new and old species, never one generation that can't mate with the next. If you think there is, you obviously are more stupid than I thought, and haven't been paying much attention to my previous points on the subject. (Yes, not listening to what I have to say is enough reason to call someone stupid)

[Elfhelm]

The problem is that ancient apes are the "intermediate point" between rats and humans, but if someone points this out, a creationist says "no, those are fricking apes". So you find something that is halfway between a rat and an ape, and it's just a vicious cycle... aaaaaargh.

/me hides.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So you find something that is halfway between a rat and an ape,

I already told you, Hicks :P

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
I already told you, Hicks :P

Hmmmmm.............. seeing Hicks will convince people there is no god?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Hmmmmm.............. seeing Hicks will convince people there is no god?

Quite possibly

It'd also prove there's a link between rats and apes

[Ste]

Originally posted by Nodrog
But if that were the case, wouldnt transitory creatures be important? As a new species is produced gradually, wouldnt there be quite a lot of creatures at the 'in between' stages that should have been discovered?

Not all species that have existed have fossils available for us to discover, that should be obvious, and W has it right - all creatures discovered are 'in between' stages.

Also, evolution can sometimes happen because of a mutation of a gene, this can cause a quite large (relatively speaking) jump between creatures.

[Mong]

Of course, people often forget that whilst we certainly evolve to fit our environment, it's not actually so simple. A lot "evolution" is actually due to a mutant strain (i.e. Hicks) being better suited to it's environment that the "norm" for its species. So what happens is that carriers of this mutation do better, and eventually this mutation becomes the norm.

Giraffes for example probably didn't just develop long necks on some subconcious genetic level. What is most likely is that the Giraffes with the longest necks did best, so over many, many years, the "long neck" gene became dominant and normal.

Just thought I'd point this out.

M.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Mong
A lot "devolution" is actually due to a mutant strain (i.e. Hicks)

I fixed it for you

[Orion Treet]

Orininaly posted by W:
But when you see my explanation, how all creatures are member of a species (not that speciation is complete), where then is the macroevolution? Every single mutation or recombination of genes happens within a species. Creation of new species happen over several generations of internal change!

Ah but what you forget is that with every mutation genetic information is lost, never added so we would be slowly degrading geneticly, if that is how you can say it.

[W]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
Ah but what you forget is that with every mutation genetic information is lost, never added so we would be slowly degrading geneticly, if that is how you can say it.

Nonsense.

[Orion Treet]

You can say what you want but it's scientificly proven that with every mutation genetic information is lost, I didn't just make it up on the spot.

Originally posted by Orion Treet
You can say what you want but it's scientificly proven that with every mutation genetic information is lost, I didn't just make it up on the spot.

So, base-pairs get 'removed' from a strand of DNA?

What a novel idea ..

[W]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
You can say what you want but it's scientificly proven that with every mutation genetic information is lost, I didn't just make it up on the spot.

Lol. Sufficient to say that science doesn't prove anything. No, you probably didn't just make it up, you probably read it in some popular science magazine, or even better (worse), saw it on the discovery channel.

[Orion Treet]

IF the big bang happend, IF the earth came to such a perfect orbit around the sun by chance, IF water and stuf just happend to be here so abundently, and then by chance some stone dicided to become life (note that that last in meant scarcasticly and not scientificly) To go from a single cell orgonisme to man you would need bilions and bilions of mutions over suposedly billions of years, that would be one hell of a lot of genetic info missing in the end after all that time, and remember we started out with the genes of a simple single cell orgonisme (which when Darwin made his theory thought was a very simple orgonisme) which is not at all simple, on cell is even very complicated in how it works, so, explain to me how a single cell can then evolve into man (Btw, I'd like to talk to you on IRC, what's your nick? I like discussing things like this)

[[Cymru]]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
You can say what you want but it's scientificly proven that with every mutation genetic information is lost, I didn't just make it up on the spot.

The previous genetic information may be lost, but surely this is just replaced with new genetic coding, or something like the giraffe example would end up with no neck, not a different neck.

[W]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
IF the big bang happend, IF the earth came to such a perfect orbit around the sun by chance, IF water and stuf just happend to be here so abundently, and then by chance some stone dicided to become life (note that that last in meant scarcasticly and not scientificly) To go from a single cell orgonisme to man you would need bilions and bilions of mutions over suposedly billions of years, that would be one hell of a lot of genetic info missing in the end after all that time, and remember we started out with the genes of a simple single cell orgonisme (which when Darwin made his theory thought was a very simple orgonisme) which is not at all simple, on cell is even very complicated in how it works, so, explain to me how a single cell can then evolve into man (Btw, I'd like to talk to you on IRC, what's your nick? I like discussing things like this)

Mutations doesn't necesarilly cause any information to be lost. Don't believe everything you read or hear. You can find me in #fow on the netgamers network, tho I'm quite likely to just put you on ignore and ban you, unless you show any chance of rational thinking.

[[Cymru]]

Originally posted by W
Lol. Sufficient to say that science doesn't prove anything. No, you probably didn't just make it up, you probably read it in some popular science magazine, or even better (worse), saw it on the discovery channel.

Hehe, i remember reading the back of one of my A-level chemistry books, and it read:

"Just remember, what you learn today may well be proved nonsense in years to come"

[Leshy]

In regard to this, two points.

First of all, why, in the case of reptiles evolving into birds, do reptiles live successfully for several millions of years, before 'suddenly' sprouting wings and evolving into birds who live succesfully for another few million years? I always thought that evolution only occured within a small population, and only if the need was there. Seeing as reptiles most likely didn't live in a small secluded region, and had been succesful for millions of years, what triggered this sudden need for evolution? And, considering evolution is a continuous process, how come so little fossils are found of 'intermediate stage creatures' whereas plenty are found of the stages prior and after? If a certain evolution took a million years, enough creatures of intermediate stage should have lived and died in that period.

Second point: None of this thread is particularly applicable to human evolution, where the major evolutionary changes haven't had any direct benefit, yet occurred on a very short timescale.

N.B. I'm not a creationist, I do believe in evolutionism, there's just still exceptions to the rule and stuff that evolution hasn't explained yet

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
explain to me how a single cell can then evolve into man

You seem to have difficulty believing a single cell can mutate into man, even over billions of years, presumably because of your previously stated belief that infirmation is 'lost' whenever a mutation takes place. You are (as has been pointed out) incorrect in that belief. Translocation, duplication, loose DNA fragments attaching themselves to chromosomes during mitosis, there are any number of ways the length (and hence complexity) of a DNA molecule can be increased and your lack of knowledge here rather undermines any opinion you may feel you are qualified to form.

As with most scientific areas, everyone has their own opinion on genetics but very few are actually entitled (by way of knowledge) to those opinions. The old joke actually applies in a very real sense here...when we want your opinion we'll give it to you.

[GavGull]

Originally posted by Leshy
In regard to this, two points.

First of all, why, in the case of reptiles evolving into birds, do reptiles live successfully for several millions of years, before 'suddenly' sprouting wings and evolving into birds who live succesfully for another few million years? I always thought that evolution only occured within a small population, and only if the need was there. Seeing as reptiles most likely didn't live in a small secluded region, and had been succesful for millions of years, what triggered this sudden need for evolution?

The lizards wouldn't suddenly sprout wings out of a need for wings, it's likely that certain lizards got primitive 'wings' (may have started out as extended, webbed limbs for example) due to a freak mutation.
If the lizard could then use it's primitive wings to run faster, it's quite likely that mutated lizard would be a more successful predator than its 'peers'. More successful predators have this knack for living longer and, thus, creating more offspring.
After time the mutants will outnumber the 'unmutants' as the latter will not be able to compete for food successfully.
Of course, mutant strains who mutate more developed wings thereafter will be more successful than their ancestors, this process continuing until we have lizards with wings.
That's my understanding of it, anyway.

[[Cymru]]

Couldnt it be suggested that, say for instance a certain mutation happened in all populations of a creature existing all over the world. In some areas the "mutants" would gain an advantage due to habitat or available prey etc. and become the dominant majority resulting in an evolutionary step.

Whereas in another part of the world, this mutation would be of no benefit, maybe even a hindrance. Thus no evolutionary step is taken and the mutation dies out or is cancelled out through breeding.

This would leave two species, maybe more, but in different parts of the world.

[GavGull]

Originally posted by [Cymru]
Couldnt it be suggested that, say for instance a certain mutation happened in all populations of a creature existing all over the world. In some areas the "mutants" would gain an advantage due to habitat or available prey etc. and become the dominant majority resulting in an evolutionary step.

Whereas in another part of the world, this mutation would be of no benefit, maybe even a hindrance. Thus no evolutionary step is taken and the mutation dies out or is cancelled out through breeding.

This would leave two species, maybe more, but in different parts of the world.

Yes. In AS level biology the example of 'evolution' they give is the peppered moth (or something).

A mutant form of the moth was found in cities in Britain during the industrial revolution. What defined the mutants from the 'default' was their black flecks (usually the moths are coloured in such a way as they can blend in while resting on the bark of a tree). Due to this colouring the black moth could survive in the sooty cities much easier.
In the countryside the 'default' moths thrived, while the black variant died, due to its natural camouflage and lack thereof respectively.
I know nothing about species categorisation, and what defines one from another, so I can't comment with authority on the subject; though I presume if the city moth endured further mutation it's possible the species could split.

[W]

Originally posted by Leshy
Why, in the case of reptiles evolving into birds, do reptiles live successfully for several millions of years, before 'suddenly' sprouting wings and evolving into birds who live succesfully for another few million years? I always thought that evolution only occured within a small population, and only if the need was there. Seeing as reptiles most likely didn't live in a small secluded region, and had been succesful for millions of years, what triggered this sudden need for evolution? And, considering evolution is a continuous process, how come so little fossils are found of 'intermediate stage creatures' whereas plenty are found of the stages prior and after? If a certain evolution took a million years, enough creatures of intermediate stage should have lived and died in that period.

Evolutionary changes are sudden since any new advatage will grow within a population by a very steep curve, almost exponential at the start. And no, evolution does not occur "when it's needed", there's no plan to how nature proceeds, no reason. It's all random when it happens. On the topic of intermediate stages, READ THE WHOLE ****ING THREAD. Every species is intermediary. A new gene however, is binary. You only have two different states, either the gene is there, or it's not. You will never find a creature with half a gene, or half the effects of a gene.

Originally posted by [Cymru]
Couldnt it be suggested that, say for instance a certain mutation happened in all populations of a creature existing all over the world. In some areas the "mutants" would gain an advantage due to habitat or available prey etc. and become the dominant majority resulting in an evolutionary step.

Whereas in another part of the world, this mutation would be of no benefit, maybe even a hindrance. Thus no evolutionary step is taken and the mutation dies out or is cancelled out through breeding.

This would leave two species, maybe more, but in different parts of the world.

Australia.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Orion Treet
You can say what you want but it's scientificly proven that with every mutation genetic information is lost, I didn't just make it up on the spot.

and more gets made too.

Couldnt it be suggested that, say for instance a certain mutation happened in all populations of a creature existing all over the world. In some areas the "mutants" would gain an advantage due to habitat or available prey etc. and become the dominant majority resulting in an evolutionary step.

Whereas in another part of the world, this mutation would be of no benefit, maybe even a hindrance. Thus no evolutionary step is taken and the mutation dies out or is cancelled out through breeding.

This would leave two species, maybe more, but in different parts of the world.

That's how Darwin enhanced his theory - at the Galapagos Islands, it was found that the same species of bird lived on each island but on one island they all had flat beaks, on another they all had long pointy beaks etc. all suited to the climate on the island.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by W
Yes. If you have a set of N different points on a line, there will be N-1 gaps on that line. What, you expect evolutionists to produce a fossil of every single individual creature that ever existed?

Your "everything is transitory" feels kinda misleading.

While everything is evolving all the time, that doesn't always add up to a non-trivial change.

Crocodiles etc. have been in your 'transition' for 300M years, and they've made it from 'crocodile' to 'crocodile.' I would not be surprised if a crocodile from today could actually reproduce with one of 100s of M of years ago.

However, I have my doubts that humans could reproduce with our predecessors from even two million years ago.

While both are technically 'in transition,' only one of them is in transition to something different.

But as you said in the post above, these transitions occur very quickly. Hence the relative lack of (rapid transition?) fossils.

[Ste]

Originally posted by acropolis
Your "everything is transitory" feels kinda misleading.

While everything is evolving all the time, that doesn't always add up to a non-trivial change.

Crocodiles etc. have been in your 'transition' for 300M years, and they've made it from 'crocodile' to 'crocodile.' I would not be surprised if a crocodile from today could actually reproduce with one of 100s of M of years ago.

However, I have my doubts that humans could reproduce with our predecessors from even two million years ago.

While both are technically 'in transition,' only one of them is in transition to something different.

But as you said in the post above, these transitions occur very quickly. Hence the relative lack of (rapid transition?) fossils.

What makes you think that crocodiles will still be the same in two million years time?

and anyway - why do crocodiles need to evolve? they are adapted to their environment and have been for millenia.
Where do you think alligators came from? they are different.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Ste
What makes you think that crocodiles will still be the same in two million years time?

and anyway - why do crocodiles need to evolve? they are adapted to their environment and have been for millenia.
Where do you think alligators came from? they are different.

1. I actually can't see the future. But they have not undergone any significant change to date (gotten smaller maybe). Certainly at any point they could begin a real change, I was just saying that arguing that a species that isn't changing a whit is evolving is misleading (even if correct).

2. They don't. In their case, they are 'evolving' in such a way that mutations always die off. Which isn't very exciting, but as you say they are already adapted. Course, it is also possible that there exists some mutation that would be good for them, and once it happens (if it does) it will spread across the species quickly.

3. I don't know anything about alligators. Or animals in general. From watching the gator wrastler in Florida I can only say crocs are much meaner.

[mpr0733]

All living beings on this planet have a genetic structure which is a combination of genes of 2 living beings that reproduced. This combining of genes happens randomly and thus it is all but sure that good or bad characteristics of any, (relatively better adapted), living being are passed on to the next generation.

Genetic advantages become inherent to a species only whenever said advantages increases chances of reproduction.