• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

One point which is often forgotten.

Let's say we have a modern species of beast named Beasty beastii, which lives in mud.

And one day, we find a fossil, 70MY old, which looks just like B beastii.

What does "The same species" mean on that timescale? How do we know it's the same species?
We don't. We just know that a lump of fossil mud, examined under a microscope, sure looks like a beast that lives in modern mud. Of course, we lack the colour scheme, the sixteen unfossilisable eyebrows and the cartilaginous training wheels, but other than that it looks pretty like.

But unless we have every descendant of that fossil from then till the present, we have no way to know with certainty if they are related in any way. Sure, we may get DNA out of a Pleistocene mammoth, but there's no way to prove a genetic link between the modern B beastii and the apparently ancestral fossil. For all we know, that fossil evolved into a fruitbat and something slug shaped evolved into the beasty we all know and love.
There may be scores of related offshoots that evolved legs, wings and propellors before becoming extinct. The sole survivor may be the similar modern beast or may not.

To say it has not evolved begs the question- is it the same species as the modern varmint, or are we looking at parallel /convergent evolution?
 
Several rule 11 and rule 12-violating posts moved to Abandon All Hope. Please eschew personal attacks and off-topic posting.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
charles brough said:
By the way, my research points to us humans not evolving in the last some 40,000 years. Anatomically, we are credited with being unchanged for almost the last 200,000 years. Like the octopus, we don't need to change we are so successful as we are!
Click to expand...

Actually, while the general body plan stayed the same, there is evidence that some genes changed as late as the last couple thousand years. E.g., that's about the brain alone:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7974

Now I doubt that anyone can tell yet exactly what those changes actually do, but _something_ changed up there in the brain fairly recently.
 
I just wanted to point out a couple of misconceptions truethat seems to be labouring under.

truethat said:
What I'd like to know is why so many people will make the assertion that the FACT that the animal hasn't changed, proves that it was perfectly suited to the environment.
Click to expand...

Misconception one: One person made the assertion. This seems a strange definition of "so many".

truethat said:
Why is it when someone states that it is a fact that a creature didn't evolve because it was perfectly suited to its environment for 92 million years, no one points out that this is a nonsensical statment.
Click to expand...

Misconception two: The statement was challenged very soon after being made, in post #6 in fact.

truethat said:
I often hear this argument put forth that Science can't be bothered to make sure the public is properly informed.
Click to expand...

Misconception three: The opinion of a group of posters on an internet discussion board does not constitute an official communication from the scientific community.

A reasonable statement, it seems to me, would be that an environmental niche has existed for 95 million years with relatively minor changes (although the specific geographical location of this niche may have varied), and hence the creatures that have evolved over that period to remain well-suited to this niche are not grossly different from those that occupied it 95 million years ago. Which is exactly what would be predicted by the theory of natural selection.

Dave
 
Could you show me a "niche" that hasn't changed in a significant way for 95 million years? That would be helpful.
 
MG1962 said:
Tidal margins
Click to expand...

IF you are serious please don't hesitate to expand on this. Perhaps I'm confused but it seems ridiculous to assert that a "niche" has remained relatively unchanged for 92 million years. To me I'd think the ocean could potentially be a niche if it weren't for rising and falling temperatures?

Please educate.
 
truethat said:
Could you show me a "niche" that hasn't changed in a significant way for 95 million years? That would be helpful.
Click to expand...

The niches of some creatures are so broadly defined that the environment can change significantly without changing the niche that they occupy. Here I'm thinking of the little multi-celled organism (can't remember the name) that can survive temperatures from way below freezing to way above boiling, and lives for hundreds of years. It lives happily in arctic ice as well as deep below the surface, close enough to the mantle that temperatures are uncomfortable for most other species.

I would say that this guy's niche hasn't changed in 95 million years.
 
Soapy Sam said:
One point which is often forgotten.

Let's say we have a modern species of beast named Beasty beastii, which lives in mud.

And one day, we find a fossil, 70MY old, which looks just like B beastii.

What does "The same species" mean on that timescale? How do we know it's the same species?
We don't. We just know that a lump of fossil mud, examined under a microscope, sure looks like a beast that lives in modern mud. Of course, we lack the colour scheme, the sixteen unfossilisable eyebrows and the cartilaginous training wheels, but other than that it looks pretty like.

But unless we have every descendant of that fossil from then till the present, we have no way to know with certainty if they are related in any way. Sure, we may get DNA out of a Pleistocene mammoth, but there's no way to prove a genetic link between the modern B beastii and the apparently ancestral fossil. For all we know, that fossil evolved into a fruitbat and something slug shaped evolved into the beasty we all know and love.
There may be scores of related offshoots that evolved legs, wings and propellors before becoming extinct. The sole survivor may be the similar modern beast or may not.

To say it has not evolved begs the question- is it the same species as the modern varmint, or are we looking at parallel /convergent evolution?
Click to expand...

I agree. The fossilized species could look EXACTLY like the modern version, but could, for instance, be more sensitive to certain toxins and thus would have to live in a very different environment.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The niches of some creatures are so broadly defined that the environment can change significantly without changing the niche that they occupy. Here I'm thinking of the little multi-celled organism (can't remember the name) that can survive temperatures from way below freezing to way above boiling, and lives for hundreds of years. It lives happily in arctic ice as well as deep below the surface, close enough to the mantle that temperatures are uncomfortable for most other species.

I would say that this guy's niche hasn't changed in 95 million years.
Click to expand...

What is the niche though? Seems to me you are showing exactly the opposite of what is being said, that environment CAN change and did drastically and the creature still thrived because it was fine with it.

My problem is the assertion that there are pockets of the planet in which environments remained basically unchanged for 92 million years. I can't wrap my mind around this as a possibility. So if someone could give an example and explain it a little that would be very helpful.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I agree. The fossilized species could look EXACTLY like the modern version, but could, for instance, be more sensitive to certain toxins and thus would have to live in a very different environment.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. This is why a fossil that looked exactly the same (which the on in question doesn't btw) wouldn't represent a same creature. To me that is an impossibility.
 
Millions and millions and millions of fossils prove evolution. Hey, wait a minute, just looky here, here is one fossil that doesn’t, see I told you the bible was right, no evolution.

Paul

:) :) :)

give me a break
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
As I stated several times now, because it suggests a static environment that stays the same for 82 million years. If an animal exists that is "perfectly suited to the environment" it would suggest that the environment would not have changed significantly in that time. Keep in mind we're not talking thousands of years. We're talking in some cases hundreds of millions of years.
Click to expand...

In many cases, animals change their size but not their basic configuration.

Sometimes there is no evolutionary change available that would represent an improved strategy. Evolution doesn't work with any imaginable changes - only those for which some genetic basis exists. For certain species, there's no configuration available which would improve things, even when the environment changes.
 
Still not addressing the claim that the environment has not changed for 92 million years.
 
truethat said:
Still not addressing the claim that the environment has not changed for 92 million years.
Click to expand...
.
Sure it has. All over the world!
Many times!
But whatever changed in the environment of that octopus wasn't a significant enough change that would require a significant alteration of the basic animal for it to cope.
Many spiders have existed more or less unchanged for 250 million years.
 
I am kind of surprised that no one has braught up Cilocanth.

Fossil records have been found to be 400 million years old - so 4 times older than this octopus - thought to be extinct for 65 Mill. But now we know they've been living in deep sea UNCHANGED for that time.

So it's not like this octopus is unique? What's the big deal?http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Cilocanth
 
HansMustermann said:
Actually, while the general body plan stayed the same, there is evidence that some genes changed as late as the last couple thousand years. E.g., that's about the brain alone:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7974

Now I doubt that anyone can tell yet exactly what those changes actually do, but _something_ changed up there in the brain fairly recently.
Click to expand...
The last couple thousand years? How about in the last hour? Certainly, the general genetic pool has changed an infinitismal amount in even 1 hour. It is meaningless, however. The trouble with these forums is that instead of getting the main idea, people pick and bicker over things like this.

Sorry to pick on you and load on you my frustrations over what others do in these forums!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom