VERY Nice Formal Proof of Evolution

tony1

As things stand now, global warming is an issue specifically
because enough energy is not escaping into space.


Global warming is an issue because of the pollutants such as carbon dioxide and others that we have been pumping into our atmosphere for the last century. This pollution is trapping more of the sun's energy in our out atmosphere which thereby warms up the Earth. It has very little to do with composting crap.

Since we had an Ice Age only about "10,000" years ago, and now we are struggling with global warming, it is obvious that we are not in a state of balance now, nor at any time since the last Ice Age.

The ice ages can be explained by realizing the Earth's orbit and axis of rotation are not completely fixed. At some points the Earth orbits the sun in an almost perfect circular path, whereas other times it is an elongated ellipse (more so than it is now). This combined with the fact that the Earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top that is not spinning fast enough to sustain an upright position, and the fact that atmospheric composition, density and amount of energy being receieved from the sun all change give us a good explanation for the ice ages. Global warming is caused by our doing, if we weren't polluting the atmosphere is would likely not be happening.

Besides, C14 has problems, mainly the upper limit of about 50,000 years (in theory).

Which is why scientists use a variety of dating techniques. If they all match up to about the same time period (lets say give or take 5-10,000 years) then it's a good bet the fossil is from that time period. For example, over time potassium 40 decomposes into argon 40. Potassium is found in most rocks, and so using radioactivity dating we can tell how old a fossil is by measuring how much argon 40 gas it contains. Using powerful lasers to melt individual crystals of rock also gives you a fairly accurate age, with an error margin of about 1% or less.

The "extrapolation" would be accurate only if the speed of light is correctly assumed to be constant.
There is no evidence for a constant speed of light.


The speed of light in a vacuum is not only proven to be constant in a multitude of experiments carried out in labs and in space, but is also predicted to be constant in many mathematical formulas and theories. It is an accepted fact that a pulse of light will travel at exactly 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum.

Of course, if that rate of deposition were true then you would have to explain where 460,000 meters of crap went.
Much harder.


Actually, you would have to explain the same thing.

It's pathetic.

No it's not actually, you are just not going to answer it because now you've realized creationism cannot account for the missing crap any more than evolutionism can. Well, evolutionism can account for it, but you don't seem to accept that. Why not answer my question though? Where does creationism say the 4.6 billion years worth of crap went? And please don't try to pull that "The Earth is only 6000 years old" blanket over your eyes, imagine, if you have to, that the Earth really is 4.6 billion years old, as it has already been proven to be much older than 6000 years.

He is actually thinking that it takes fish 20 million years to jump out of the water.

I believe he was thinking it took fish 20 million years to evolve to a stage where they were amphibians, where they could live on water or on land.

Sorry for the long post, just have a lot of spare time right now ;)
 
*Originally posted by Xelios
Global warming is an issue because of the pollutants such as carbon dioxide and others that we have been pumping into our atmosphere for the last century. This pollution is trapping more of the sun's energy in our out atmosphere which thereby warms up the Earth. It has very little to do with composting crap.
*

I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.

*Global warming is caused by our doing, if we weren't polluting the atmosphere is would likely not be happening.*

You just proved that it wasn't our doing, and now you're saying it is.
That is called doublespeak, and is the result of attending school.

*If they all match up to about the same time period (lets say give or take 5-10,000 years) then it's a good bet the fossil is from that time period.*

"If they all match up"
Ha ha ha.
ROTFLMAO.
Dream on.

*For example, over time potassium 40 decomposes into argon 40. Potassium is found in most rocks, and so using radioactivity dating we can tell how old a fossil is by measuring how much argon 40 gas it contains.*

Check here to see an analysis of how "accurate" such dating is.

*The speed of light in a vacuum is not only proven to be constant in a multitude of experiments carried out in labs and in space, but is also predicted to be constant in many mathematical formulas and theories. It is an accepted fact that a pulse of light will travel at exactly 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum.*

Aside from the fact that it is 0 thru a block of wood, you perhaps don't understand what "constant" means.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.

*Actually, you would have to explain the same thing.*

No, I don't, since I'm arguing for an age of about 6000 years for the earth.
Therefore I am arguing for about 0.6 to 6 meters of crap, humus and compost outside your window.
I don't have to explain 460,000 meters; you do.

*creationism cannot account for the missing crap any more than evolutionism can.*

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Let's try to see if you can understand this.
I don't have to explain the missing crap; you do.
I only have to explain about a meter.
Since that's what is there, my job is done.
Creationism agrees with the observations.

*Well, evolutionism can account for it, but you don't seem to accept that.*

You are a master of doublespeak, triplespeak and quadruplespeak.
Evolution has not accounted for it.
Xelios merely says he does, and blames evolution for the non-explanation, namely that it "disappeared."

*Where does creationism say the 4.6 billion years worth of crap went? And please don't try to pull that "The Earth is only 6000 years old" blanket over your eyes, imagine, if you have to, that the Earth really is 4.6 billion years old, as it has already been proven to be much older than 6000 years.*

You've been lied to; the earth really isn't 4.6 billion years old.
Therefore, creationism doesn't have to explain any missing crap.

Just an aside: the way debate works is that I get to give my own arguments.
It's an interesting tactic you have of trying to give me your own arguments and asking me to argue my point using your arguments.
Since your arguments are the losing arguments, I don't think I'll bother with that technique.

*I believe he was thinking it took fish 20 million years to evolve to a stage where they were amphibians, where they could live on water or on land.*

I realize that he WAS thinking that, but what he was NOT thinking was how a fish is actually supposed to take 20 million years to move from water to land.
If the fish breeds in the water, it isn't going to want to move onto land.
If it tries to breed on the beach where the waves wash ashore repeatedly, its eggs are going to get washed away, so how exactly does a fish take 20 million years to evolve like that?

BTW, books on evolution show cute little pictures with a fish in the water, with an amphibian half in the water, half on land and a land creature on land, and arrows in between pointing in the direction of the land.
The assumption is that there are no waves, no storms and that somehow fish adapt to not drying out while still in the water.

Pure fiction.
 
I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.


Of course it has been warming, but it should be warming only a very small amount. Recent pollution has added to the problem. That combined with the natural variations in Earth's orbit, axis and the amount of light received from the sun has all come together to cause this warming. But the real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by pollution.

"If they all match up"
Ha ha ha.
ROTFLMAO.
Dream on.


Are you simply "laughing" because you have no counter to that arguement? It is pretty straight forward, isn't it?

Aside from the fact that it is 0 thru a block of wood, you perhaps don't understand what "constant" means.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.


The block of wood idea is just stupid, so I'll skip it. The speed of light is constant, as long as it is travelling in a vacuum. As you get into refractive indexes such as glass, the apparent speed of light changes, but the overall speed does not. That is, in a vacuum the entire waveform of a pulse of light is measured to be travelling at the exact same speed every time the experiment is performed, roughly 3.0x10^8 m/s. When in glass, light appears to be travelling slower than that, when in fact this is just due to the fact that you are not measuring the entire waveform of the pulse of light. If you accounted for the whole waveform, you would see that the overall speed really is about 3.0x10^8 m/s.

Creationism agrees with the observations.

Excuse me? Creationism does the exact opposite. Almost everything science is finding in its observations is refuted by creationism. One day you will have to accept that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.

You are a master of doublespeak, triplespeak and quadruplespeak.
Evolution has not accounted for it.


I will say it again, evolution has accounted for it, but you don't seem to accept that. After all, for the first couple billion years there was nothing alive anyway. For about a billion years after that there was so little living that their crap contribution was pretty much negligable.

You've been lied to; the earth really isn't 4.6 billion years old.

Says who? The Bible? And you actually believe the observations made by a small group of people 2000 years ago over the modern observations by a large group of people today? No, you have not been lied to, such a crude estimation as 6000 years is probably the best people could have come up with 2000 years ago.

Since your arguments are the losing arguments, I don't think I'll bother with that technique.

The real reason you will not bother to answer my question is because you don't have an answer for it. Why not try saying "I don't know" instead of trying to sidestep the question entirely?

If it tries to breed on the beach where the waves wash ashore repeatedly, its eggs are going to get washed away, so how exactly does a fish take 20 million years to evolve like that?

I cannot answer that, simply because biology is not my field. However, if you would like an answer: www.madsci.org
 
The "problem" of crap is a non-problem, as discussed earlier. The total amount of biomass on Earth at any one time is approximately constant. Crap is mostly broken down by micro-organisms and recycled into other living things.

<i>Why haven't "we" found any transitional fossils, either?</i>

Um... we have. The idea that we haven't is more creationist nonsense.
 
Last edited:
*Originally posted by Xelios
But the real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by pollution.
*

What are they paying your teachers for?
The real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by the INVENTION OF THE THERMOMETER.

*Are you simply "laughing" because you have no counter to that arguement?*

No.
I'm laughing because of the idea of "matching up" the various dates which are accurate plus or minus 10000% or so.
The idea of various dates "matching up" is based on skillful fudging of figures.

*The speed of light is constant, as long as it is travelling in a vacuum.*

What was the speed of light in 2000 BC?

*Creationism does the exact opposite.*

No, your brain does the exact opposite, just like a trained seal.
I predicted 0.6 to 6.0 meters of crap, humus, dead plants, etc outside your window.
That's how much there is.
You predicted that 46,000 meters of crap "disappeared."
Well, where are the "observations" that proved that 46,000 meters of crap "disappeared?"

*One day you will have to accept that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.*

You are absolutely right.
When it turns 6001, I'll admit that it is 6001.

*evolution has accounted for it, but you don't seem to accept that. After all, for the first couple billion years there was nothing alive anyway. For about a billion years after that there was so little living that their crap contribution was pretty much negligable.*

Nothing alive for two billion years?
Who observed that?
In any case, you still have to account for 16,000 meters of crap.
Saying it "disappeared" doesn't count.
That doesn't work even at a four year old's birthday party, when the magician makes a favorite toy disappear.

*Says who? The Bible? And you actually believe the observations made by a small group of people 2000 years ago over the modern observations by a large group of people today?*

You bet.
I went to school with many of the people who perform those "observations."
I had a low opinion of their scholastic abilities then and I haven't seen anything that would change it now.

*No, you have not been lied to, such a crude estimation as 6000 years is probably the best people could have come up with 2000 years ago.*

Scientists keep changing the number all of the time, so there is no number now that is provably valid.

*The real reason you will not bother to answer my question is because you don't have an answer for it.*

DUHHHHHH!!
Let's try this again.
In a debate, d-e-b-a-t-e, you prove your side, I prove my side.
I don't have to explain your misbegotten ideas, that's your job.

*I cannot answer that, simply because biology is not my field.*

Nobody can answer that regardless, because it is LUDICROUS.

*Originally posted by James R
The total amount of biomass on Earth at any one time is approximately constant.
*

Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.

*The idea that we haven't is more creationist nonsense.*

Glad you brought that up.
Since Xelios and I were discussing the transition (over 20 million years plus) from sea animals to land animals, where do you propose those transitional fossils would be found?
In the sea, on land, or sort of scattered exactly along the line where the waves hit the beach?
 
The real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by the INVENTION OF THE THERMOMETER.

So you are suggesting the temperature of the Earth went up when the thermometer was invented? Hmmm.... I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

I'm laughing because of the idea of "matching up" the various dates which are accurate plus or minus 10000% or so.
The idea of various dates "matching up" is based on skillful fudging of figures.


If you were paying attention when I first mentioned it, I said if they all matched up to approximatly the same time period, it would be safe to assume the fossil is indeed from that time period. Different dating techniques will have different margins of error, but it's not uncommmon for 3 or 4 different dating tests to come up with approximatly the same result with, say, 10% difference between them maximum, most of the time it's closer to 3 or 4%.

What was the speed of light in 2000 BC?

Approximatly 3.0x10^8 m/s, in vaccuum. How do we know? Because a) there is nothing to suggest otherwise b) if it wasn't, out observations of the current light reaching us would be much different, c) because a myriad of theories and laws require the speed of light to be constant.

I predicted 0.6 to 6.0 meters of crap, humus, dead plants, etc outside your window.
That's how much there is.


I can just as easily make my own theory, that the Earth is only 2000 years old, and therefor there should only be .2-2 meters of crap. It agrees with the observations doesn't it tony? It must be right then. :bugeye:

You are absolutely right.
When it turns 6001, I'll admit that it is 6001.


It has already turned out to be a few billion, so when are you going to admit it?

In any case, you still have to account for 16,000 meters of crap.

We have accounted for it, many times now. It has not disappeared, if you would read over our posts once again maybe you will discover where you had that misunderstanding.

You bet.
I went to school with many of the people who perform those "observations."
I had a low opinion of their scholastic abilities then and I haven't seen anything that would change it now.


That's because you have not taken your eyes off your Bible. You cannot expect to see through it you know...

Scientists keep changing the number all of the time, so there is no number now that is provably valid.

I would rather have a changing number that actually agrees with current observations than a rediculous number that does not agree with any observations.

In a debate, d-e-b-a-t-e, you prove your side, I prove my side.
I don't have to explain your misbegotten ideas, that's your job.


Look at what you just wrote tony, in your own words "I prove my side." You have not even tried to as yet, all you have done so far is attempt to shoot down the other side's arguements, without even once trying to prove your own. Sorry tony, Bible quotes do not count as proof in a debate.

Nobody can answer that regardless, because it is LUDICROUS.


Stop being a jackass tony. If you want an answer, I have pointed out a very good source for you. If getting an answer is just too much work for you, that's ok. You are free to believe what you want, but your beliefs to not negate the heaps of evidence in support of the sciences.

Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.

Please tony, at least make an effort to understand people's posts. The --->TOTAL<--- biomass of the Earth stays approximatly constant. Humans consume biomass and change some of it into waste energy such as heat. Thus, as more humans enter the world, more biomass is used up by them.
 
Last edited:
<i>Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.</i>

Please re-read what I wrote, carefully. Then read it again. Keep doing that until you understand it.

<i>Since Xelios and I were discussing the transition (over 20 million years plus) from sea animals to land animals, where do you propose those transitional fossils would be found? In the sea, on land, or sort of scattered exactly along the line where the waves hit the beach?</i>

No fossils are found in the sea. A fossil is, by definition, preserved in the ground. That ground can be beneath the current sea floor or beneath what is currently land. The boundaries between land and sea have changed many times over the eons, due to rising and falling sea levels, continental drift and so on. Why do I have to keep explaining such simple concepts to you, tony1?
 
I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.
That would be true, were it not completely false. A very noticable spike of temperature increase has occurred in parallel to the dramatic boost in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Beyond the fact that a comittee selected by Bush for their impartiality returned with a conclusion that pollution was the cause of the temperature increase, we have a god deal impiracle evidence. Couple that with the fact that green-house gas effects have been proven to cause the trapping of heat. Heck, we even have the entire planet Venus.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.
Are you kidding? If the speed of light was noit constant, then there would be abnormalities in the light from our sun. Do you not recieve an equal amount of light from our sun everyday, factoring out cloud cover and variatian due to the earth's changing position? Is not the sky blue? If we were to expect abberations in the speed of light we would not expect any particle to maintain dominance. The relative size of blue would no longer matter.
 
Bullfrog:

If the offer was genuine, the reward would have been collected by now.

Even the terms of the reward on the linked page are unclear. Primarily, the problem is with the word "kind", as used on the page. Without a clear, unequivocal definition of "kind", I doubt the owners of the site would accept any evidence presented to them. They would always be free to argue that the examples given were not "kinds". It's a common Creationist ploy.

Moreover, the owners of the site do not seem to have the money. They claim they could raise it, but there is no evidence of that.

Compare the skeptic challenge of the James Randi Education Foundation, which is backed up with actual money and a solid contract pre-signed by both parties before any challenge is undertaken.

The creationist site is a joke.
 
I know this is useless... but I'll bite.

One problem with creationism is that it does not account for tghe other 'variations' of humanity. No where in the bible did god create Adam, Eve, and then the mutants.

skull1.jpg
skull2.jpg
skull3.jpg

taken from here
This link has other ape->human skulls and shows that even creationists can not tell decide if the transitional fossils are more ape or more human.

In an effort to get my $100000....
cynognathus.jpg

taken from here

Why is it that religious zealots hold on to false ideas until the last possible moment?
They wouldn't believe the earth moved around the sun, that the planet wasn't flat, and now this.

And finally from here :

<ul>
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
<ul>
<li>
Cladoselachians (e.g., <i>Cladoselache</i>).
<li>
Hybodonts (e.g. <i>Hybodus</i>)
<li>
Heterodonts (e.g. <i>Heterodontus</i>)
<li>
Hexanchids (e.g. <i>Chlamydoselache</i>)
</ul>
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
<ul>
<li>
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. <i>Cheirolepis</i>); living chondrosteans such as
<i>Polypterus</i> and <i>Calamoichthys</i>, and also the living acipenseroid
chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
<li>
Primitive holosteans such as <i>Semionotus</i>.
</ul>
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
<ul>
<li>
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. <i>Leptolepis</i>, an excellent holostean-teleost
intermediate
<li>
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
<li>
Clupeomorphs (e.g. <i>Diplomystus</i>)
<li>
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. <i>Portheus</i>)
<li>
Protacanthopterygians
</ul>
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
<ul>
<li>
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. <i>Cheirolepis</i>)
<li>
<i>Osteolepis</i> -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes,
still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of
lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones,
and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
<li>
<i>Eusthenopteron</i> (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) --
intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest
amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone.
Fins very like early amphibian feet.
<li>
Icthyostegids (such as <i>Icthyostega</i> and
<i>Icthyostegopsis</i>) --
Terrestrial amphibians with many of <i>Eusthenopteron</i>'s fish features
(e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about
whether <i>Icthyostega</i> should be considered a fish or an amphibian;
it is an excellent transitional fossil.
<li>
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., <i>Pholidogaster</i>, <i>Pteroplax</i>) -- still have some
icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g.,
the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the
nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
</ul>
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
<ul>
<li>
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. <i>Seymouria</i>) -- classic labyrinthodont
skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits;
amphibian ankle.
<li>
Cotylosaurs (e.g. <i>Hylonomus</i>, <i>Limnoscelis</i>) -- slightly amphibian
skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton
classically reptilian.
<li>
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I
won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid
reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles
(icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians,
lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't
have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which
gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
</ul>
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
<ul>
<li>
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between
the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
<li>
Therapsids (e.g. <i>Dimetrodon</i>) -- the numerous therapsid
fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to
mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth
differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles,
the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the
whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium
(major bone of the hip) expands forward.
<li>
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. <i>Cynognathus</i>) -- very mammal-like reptiles.
Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic
mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly
differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for
the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian
scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of
bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably <b>reptilian</b>
jaw joint.
<li>
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. <i>Tritylodon</i>,
<i>Bienotherium</i>) -- skull
even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has
reptilian jaw joint.
<li>
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. <i>Diarthrognathus</i>) -- has all the mammalian
features of the tritilodonts, and has a <b>double</b> jaw joint; both the
reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side,
in <i>Diarthrognathus</i>'s skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
<li>
Morganucodonts (e.g. <i>Morganucodon</i>) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint,
but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are
beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of
the middle ear).
<li>
Eupantotheres (e.g. <i>Amphitherium</i>) -- these mammals begin to show the
complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and
eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
<li>
Proteutherians (e.g. <i>Zalambdalestes</i>) -- small, early insectivores with
molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian
molars.
<li>
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to
placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the
monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes
in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils".
[see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
</ul>
Transition from reptiles to birds:
<ul>
<li>
<i>Lisboasaurus estesi</i> and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like
reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of
early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been
a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
<li>
<i>Protoavis</i> -- this is a <b>highly controversial</b> fossil that may or may not be
an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to
determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it
in case people have heard about it recently.
<li>
<i>Archeopteryx</i> -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits,
claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight
muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. <i>Archeopteryx</i>
could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from
the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large
flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
<li>
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] --
A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after <i>Archeopteryx</i>.
Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized
sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also
has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian
pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how
long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
<li>
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] --
This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after <i>Archeopteryx</i>. It still
has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is
medium-length with a fused tip (<i>Archeopteryx</i> had long, unfused tail;
modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with
the Las Hoyas bird.
<li>
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. <i>Hesperornis</i> and <i>Ichthyornis</i>. Skeleton
further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand
bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are
missing in modern birds.
<li>
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can
be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other
modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
</ul>
</ul>
<p>
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
<ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
<ul>
<li>
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like
clawed primates with generalized nails.
<li>
<i>Notharctus</i>, an early Eocene lemur
<li>
<i>Parapithecus</i>, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
<li>
<i>Propliopithecus</i>, a small primate intermediate between <i>Parapithecus</i>
and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
<li>
<i>Aegyptopithecus</i>, an early ape.
<li>
<i>Limnopithecus</i>, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
<li>
<i>Dryopithecus</i>, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
<li>
<i>Ramapithecus</i>, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the
hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
<li>
<i>Australopithecus</i> spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
<li>
<i>Homo habilis</i>.
<li>
<i>Homo erectus</i>. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
<li>
<i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i>. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs
here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
<li>
<i>Homo sapiens neanderthalensis</i> (not on the direct line to <i>H. sapiens
sapiens</i>, but worth mentioning).
<li>
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well
covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general-
interest books on human evolution.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
<ul>
<li>
Paramyids, e.g. <i>Paramys</i> -- early "primitive" rodent
<li>
<i>Paleocastor</i> -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
<li>
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but <i>Paramys</i> and its
friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with
about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
<ul>
<li>
<i>Pakicetus</i> -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found.
It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a
land animal (tip of snout). The ears were <b>partially</b> modified for
hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils
of land mammals, suggesting this early whale <b>maybe</b> could walk on land.
<li>
<i>Basilosaurus isis</i> -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the
Eocene (after <i>Pakicetus</i>). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant
of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and
must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging
forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation
for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
<li>
Archaeocetes (e.g. <i>Protocetus</i>, <i>Eocetus</i>) -- have lost hind legs entirely,
but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
<li>
Squalodonts (e.g. <i>Prosqualodon</i>) -- whale-like skull with <b>dorsal</b>
nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Kentriodon</i>, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Mesocetus</i>, an early whalebone whale
<li>
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing
that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
<ul>
<li>
Miacids (e.g. <i>Viverravus</i> and <i>Miacis</i>) -- small weasel-like animals
with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
<li>
Arctoids (e.g. <i>Cynodictis</i>, <i>Hesperocyon</i>) -- intermediate between
miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more
specialized, braincase is larger.
<li>
<i>Cynodesmus</i>, <i>Tomarctus</i> -- transitional fossils between arctoids
and the modern dog genus <i>Canis</i>.
<li>
<i>Hemicyon</i>, <i>Ursavus</i> -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids
and the bears.
<li>
<i>Indarctos</i> -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action,
molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the
modern genus <i>Ursus</i>.
<li>
<i>Phlaocyon</i> -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials,
transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
</ul>
Meanwhile back at the ranch,<br>
<ul>
<li>
<i>Plesictis</i>, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids
(weasels et al.)
<li>
<i>Stenoplesictis</i> and <i>Palaeoprionodon</i>, early civets related to the
miacids (see above)
<li>
<i>Tunguricits</i>, transitional between early civets and modern civets
<li>
<i>Ictitherium</i>, transitional between early civets to hyenas
<li>
<i>Proailurus</i>, transitional from early civets to early cats
<li>
<i>Dinictis</i>, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
<li>
<i>Hoplophoneus</i>, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
</ul>
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
<ul>
<li>
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic
mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
<li>
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt
crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
<li>
Late condylarths, e.g. <i>Phenocodus</i> -- a fair-sized animal with
hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of
crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone
(like modern hoofed animals).
<li>
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
<li>
[Perissodactyls are animals with an <b>odd</b> number of toes; most of the
weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
<li>
<i>Tetraclaeonodon</i> -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like
teeth
<li>
<i>Hyracotherium</i> -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with
more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly
different tooth cusps, compared to to <i>Tetraclaeonodon</i>. A small, doggish
animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes
in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
<li>
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse
fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
<li>
<i>Orohippus</i> -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
<li>
<i>Epihippus</i> -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
<li>
<i>Epihippus (Duchesnehippus)</i> -- a subgenus with <i>Mesohippus</i>-like teeth
<li>
<i>Mesohippus</i> -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
<li>
<i>Miohippus</i> -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of
successful three-toed browsers]
<li>
<i>Parahippus</i> -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
<li>
<i>'Parahippus' leonensis</i> -- a <i>Merychippus</i>-like species of <i>Parahippus</i>
<li>
<i>'Merychippus' gunteri</i> -- a <i>Parahippus</i>-like species of <i>Merychippus</i>
<li>
<i>'Merychippus' primus</i> -- a more typical <i>Merychippus</i>, but still very
like <i>Parahippus</i>.
<li>
<i>Merychippus</i> -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony
(gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
<li>
<i>Merychippus (Protohippus)</i> -- a subgenus of <i>Merychippus</i> developing
<i>Pliohippus</i>-like teeth.
<li>
<i>Pliohippus</i> & <i>Dinohippus</i> -- <b>one</b>-toed grazers, spring-footed
<li>
<i>Equus (Plesippus)</i> -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
<li>
<i>Equus (Hippotigris)</i>, the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
<li>
<i>Equus (Equus)</i>, the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys.
[note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating
that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
<li>
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
<li>
Heptodonts, e.g. <i>Lophiodont</i> -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional
to modern tapirs
<li>
<i>Protapirus</i> -- a probable descendent of <i>Lophiodont</i>, much like modern
tapirs but without the flexible snout.
<li>
<i>Miotapirus</i> -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional
between <i>Protapirus</i> and the modern <i>Tapirus</i>.
<li>
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
<li>
<i>Caenopus</i>, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the
hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
<li>
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls
(cloven-hoofed animals):
<li>
Dichobunoids, e.g. <i>Diacodexis</i>, transitional between condylarths
and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like
but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
<li>
<i>Propalaeochoerus</i>, an early pig, transitional between <i>Diacodexis</i> and
modern pigs.
<li>
<i>Protylopus</i>, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between
dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through
<i>Protomeryx</i>, <i>Procamelus</i>, <i>Pleauchenia</i>, <i>Lama</i> (which are still alive;
these are the llamas) and finally <i>Camelus</i>, the modern camels.
<li>
<i>Archeomeryx</i>, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the
dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through
<i>Eumeryx</i>, <i>Paleomeryx</i> and <i>Blastomeryx</i>, <i>Dicrocerus</i> (with antlers) and
then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer --
muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
<li>
<i>Palaeotragus</i>, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi &
giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since <i>Palaeotragus</i> and
is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After <i>Palaeotragus</i> came
<i>Giraffa</i>, with elongated legs & neck, and <i>Sivatherium</i>, large ox-like
giraffes that <b>almost</b> survived to the present.
</ul>
</ul>
So, there's a <b>partial</b> list of transitional fossils.
<p>
This really only scratches the surface since I left out all groups
that have no surviving relatives, didn't discuss modern amphibians or
reptiles, left out most of the birds, ignored the diversity in modern
fish, didn't discuss the bovids or elephants or rodents or many other
mammal groups.... I hope this gives a taste of the richness of the
fossil record and the abundance of transitional fossils between major
vertebrate taxa.
<p>
By the way, notice that this list mostly includes transitional fossils
that happened to lead to modern, familiar animals. This may
unintentionally give the impression that fossil lineages proceed in a
"straight line" from one fossil to the next. That's not so; generally
at any one time there are a whole raft of successful species, only a
few of which happened to leave modern descendents. The horse family is
a good example; <i>Merychippus</i> gave rise to something like 19 new
three-toed grazing horse species, which traveled all over the Old and
New Worlds and were very successful at the time. Only one of these
lines happened to lead to <i>Equus</i>, though, so that's the only line I
talked about. Evolution is not a ladder, it's a branching bush.<p>
 
transitional fossils

the problem with transitional fossils originates entirely from the creationists corner. Every time a transitional fossil is found they just demand that the next transitional fossil should be uncovered.

the most famous transitional fossil is archaeopteryx. A transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Then they required a transitional fossil between archaeopteryx and dinosaurs. That was found. They still weren't happy. Demanded another transitonal fossil, etc etc. So basically it is all pointless. They will never be happy with any transitional fossil because they lost the capacity to think.
 
Hence the
I know this is useless... but I'll bite.
It kinda reminds me of the infinity thread, where you get closer and closer to 0 but don't reach it;)
 
Back
Top