Integrity of transitional fossils supporting marco-evolution?

J

Jadebrain_Prime

Atheist now
Registered Senior Member
I was debating science vs. religion with an acquaintance recently (surprisingly, the debate went along in a very civil fashion), and he mentioned the claim that, while micro-evolution has been proven to be true, he does not believe that marco-evolution is true or valid due to the lack of transitional fossils. I mentioned to him that there actually are transitional fossils which have been found, but he told me that those which have been found were simply the result of the scientists who worked with them just mixing and matching pieces of skeletons to create a semblance of a transitional fossil.

As I have not heard of any such tampering, I would like to ask the Sciforums community to provide additional information which may help me to further understand my acquaintance's claim. Has there been any evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of such tampering? What additional information should I learn? Etc...
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
Has there been any evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of such tampering? What additional information should I learn? Etc...
Click to expand...

The most blatant case was Piltdown Man, a forgery consisting of a human skull and an orangutan jawbone. Nebraska Man was another, although that was an error rather than a deliberate forgery.
 
billvon said:
The most blatant case was Piltdown Man, a forgery consisting of a human skull and an orangutan jawbone. Nebraska Man was another, although that was an error rather than a deliberate forgery.
Click to expand...

And both were uncovered as false by other scientists. Open review by others in the field, the best way to prevent falsification.

As for the point of macro vs micro. Macro is just a lot of micros over huge amounts of time.
 
If he really understands micro-evolution, then macro-evolution follows automatically.

Ask him why he thinks there is a barrier to making a new species. For that matter, ask him what he thinks a species is.

Speciation has been observed in the lab. Darwin's finches are another example.

Whole series of transitional fossils have been found that establish the evolution of whales from the sea to the land then back to the sea, for example. There's also a very good series of fossils showing the evolution of horses. And birds evolved from dinosaurs.
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
I was debating science vs. religion with an acquaintance recently (surprisingly, the debate went along in a very civil fashion), and he mentioned the claim that, while micro-evolution has been proven to be true, he does not believe that marco-evolution is true or valid due to the lack of transitional fossils. I mentioned to him that there actually are transitional fossils which have been found, but he told me that those which have been found were simply the result of the scientists who worked with them just mixing and matching pieces of skeletons to create a semblance of a transitional fossil.
Click to expand...
you're right there are gaps in the fossil record but i believe they can be explained by other evolutionary processes. The gradual hypothesis of Darwin is wrong, it has been disproven by a group of scientists. When it comes to evolution, theres two types of scientists.

1. The "neo-Darwinists" (modern synthesis), they are very into Darwins gradualism, natural selection added with genetical mechanisms such as random mutation and genetic drift etc, they take the gradualism ie as a religious script and are very dogmatic about it. I dont see the point in debating these people becuase no matter what you say they will not shift on the evidence.

I am very much into group 2 of scientists.

2. The "Non Darwinians" or "Third Synthesis", this group of scientists believe that the neodarwinian interpretation of evolution is incomplete. They are trying to IMPROVE evolution, something which the modern Darwinians are not doing. This group of scientists are interested in exploring new mechanisms and ideas. Such ideas may include neolamarckism, directed mutation, symbiosis, field theories... molecular drive etc. Most of these theories do not fit in to a gradualistic framework and some of them may be "directed", that is a heresy to the neodarwinists they do not want anything "directed" they work with chance only.

Sadly many people on forums are not interested in discussing group 2 of scientists. However the majority of scientists do know that a third synthesis is appearing.
 
The facts of evolution cannot be disputed. The fossil record shows many examples of different but similar/related species. Two well known examples: The eohippus to modern horse & primate evolution resulting in modern Homo Sapiens. There are only two plausible explanations.

Darwinian evolution or some variant of it.

Deity-directed evolution. This suggests that the deity is a practical joker. He is amused by scientists following his contrived evidence supporting the erroneous notion of evolution. "Look, Gabriel, they took the bait!"


​
I prefer the Darwinian explanation or some variant of it.
 
There will always be gaps in the fossil record. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, requiring specific conditions and timing. Almost every organism that has ever existed did not get preserved. What we find is what's left.
 
Sorry for my lack of responses to my own thread... Sciforums only emailed me notifications of the first two replies. Anyway, I have a question for James...

James R said:
Speciation has been observed in the lab.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify this? As in, which species were involved, both before and after the speciation process? I myself have never heard of speciation observed in labs, and if I am to continue the debate with the acquaintance of mine using the information given here, obviously I'll need specific examples.

Also, as for Leopold's mentioning of "Third Synthesis," I did a quick google search, but found little that was either relevant or usable - apparently there's a "Third Synthesis Inc" which is cluttering the search results, and the rest of the results link to pages where I have to buy a book. Given my extremely limited budget, I can't really devote the financial resources to buying a book just for one debate. Could you, perhaps, provide me with a link to a website where I can learn these things for free?
 
Fraud involving transitional fossils would be a lot more difficult now than in the old days.

Also, as for Leopold's mentioning of "Third Synthesis,"
Click to expand...
Just use the standard neo-Darwinian stuff - there is no definable new school or theory, just a collection of mechanisms for generating variation or imposing selection that different people want to see recognized as playing greater roles than others think they play. It's an argument completely contained within Darwinian variation/selection theory.

Could you clarify this? As in, which species were involved, both before and after the speciation process? I myself have never heard of speciation observed in labs,
Click to expand...
The Google search for that is especially quick and easy, and the standard sites explaining evolutionary theory all link to multiple examples.
 
how dogmatic are neo-darwinists?
even when they are shown proof from a peer reviewed source they STILL don't believe it.

jadebrain,
if you need anything else PM me.
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
I mentioned to him that there actually are transitional fossils which have been found, but he told me that those which have been found were simply the result of the scientists who worked with them just mixing and matching pieces of skeletons to create a semblance of a transitional fossil.
Click to expand...

Good luck on the 'debate'. He clearly feels that evolution would somehow falsify his religion so will not fairly debate. The proof is in the above statement which amounts to, "this evidence is too strong in favor of evolution so I will assume it is a lie".
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
I was debating science vs. religion with an acquaintance recently (surprisingly, the debate went along in a very civil fashion), and he mentioned the claim that, while micro-evolution has been proven to be true, he does not believe that marco-evolution is true or valid due to the lack of transitional fossils. I mentioned to him that there actually are transitional fossils which have been found, but he told me that those which have been found were simply the result of the scientists who worked with them just mixing and matching pieces of skeletons to create a semblance of a transitional fossil.

As I have not heard of any such tampering, I would like to ask the Sciforums community to provide additional information which may help me to further understand my acquaintance's claim. Has there been any evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of such tampering? What additional information should I learn? Etc...
Click to expand...

It sounds as if your acquaintance is a rather wild conspiracy theorist. Why would thousands of scientists worldwide, from competing countries and academic institutions, connive in perpetuating a colossal fraud on the public, without SOMEONE thinking they could make their career by exposing it? Surely common sense alone should be enough to dismiss this notion?

Actually, to deal with people like this, I recommend Robert Asher's excellent book "Evolution and Belief". This contains a table (table 8.1, pp 144-149) listing some 200 odd transitional fossils. So there are plenty of them. One of the points he makes is that it is amazing actually that the fossil record is as complete as it is, give the coincidence of factors needed to entomb animal and plant remains for millions of years and preserve them in a form we can recognise. So of course it's full of gaps - it is far more gap than anything else, and that is entirely to be expected.
 
exchemist said:
Why would thousands of scientists worldwide, from competing countries and academic institutions, connive in perpetuating a colossal fraud on the public, without SOMEONE thinking they could make their career by exposing it?
Click to expand...
to expose something like this requires evidence, something the common man doesn't have ready access to.
most such people are ridiculed to oblivion which dissuades most others.
people make the mistake that since one is false the other MUST be true, which is a fallacy.
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
which species were involved, both before and after the speciation process?
Click to expand...

Species don't come with pre-existing names and checklists to know if something is one species or another.

Here's an old web page that mentions fruit-flies that evolved into separate populations with sterile crosses and mating behavior where they preferred their own "kind."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

A different fruit fly experiment: http://books.google.com/books?id=oKVLABf9RB8C&pg=PA3

Species of bacteria are messy, but here E coli bacteria, one of the defining traits is they can't metabolize citrate in aerobic conditions, evolved to metabolize citrate in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

While not in a lab, in London the introduction of a new habitat (the Tube) lead to adaptive radiation a new population of mosquitoes.

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
 
leopold said:
to expose something like this requires evidence, something the common man doesn't have ready access to.
most such people are ridiculed to oblivion which dissuades most others.
people make the mistake that since one is false the other MUST be true, which is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the "common man" would have to do this, I mean some scientist would be bound to break ranks and make his name by blowing the whistle on it. I'm sure an awkward chap like the "3rd Synthesis" man Gert Korthof would have done it for example, if there were indeed such a conspiracy. But he doesn't claim transitional fossils are artificially concocted, does he?
 
exchemist said:
I don't mean the "common man" would have to do this, I mean some scientist would be bound to break ranks and make his name by blowing the whistle on it. I'm sure an awkward chap like the "3rd Synthesis" man Gert Korthof would have done it for example, if there were indeed such a conspiracy. But he doesn't claim transitional fossils are artificially concocted, does he?
Click to expand...
you are not privy to the inside story so go away.

edit:
this is my last post/response to this thread.
 
Jadebrain_Prime said:
Could you clarify this? As in, which species were involved, both before and after the speciation process? I myself have never heard of speciation observed in labs, and if I am to continue the debate with the acquaintance of mine using the information given here, obviously I'll need specific examples.
Click to expand...

Here are a few:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Drosophila paulistorum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top