Fossil and Evolution

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure my last post was as clear as it could be. Let's see if I can put it more clearly.

The reasoning goes like this:

* If the theory of evolution was true, then there were transitional species along certain lines of descent, e.g. dino-birds.

* If there were transitional species, then there should be intermediate forms in the fossil record, e.g. fossils morphologically intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

* Let's look at the fossil record. Here are the requisite intermediate forms.

* Therefore (and from other evidence, morphological, genetic, embryological, et cetera) the theory of evolution is true.

* Therefore, these dinosaur-bird intermediate forms (for example) represent transitional species along the dinosaur-bird family tree.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, dr. kitten, you're managing to be more rude and crass than The Atheist.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll try to find a way out of this dark mirror universe where Spock wears a goatee.

 

[The Atheist]

As I am trying to understand how things that appear to be discrete entities with wide temporal separation could be said to have developed one form another, I will have to ponder the lava lamp a little more.

One of the problems both proponents and opponents of evolutionary theory is the fact that the jumps between species are so large - obviously the changes take place over millennia, which is [start ID mode] why don't chimpanzees and bonobos give birth to more highly-evolved species any longer?[/close ID mode]

The enormous jumps aren't actually enormous at all, it's simply a lack of fossils make it appear so. The number of fossils is a minute fraction of all the animals. What evolutionary scientists are trying to do with fossils is akin to trying to tell what a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle shows a picture of with only 16 pieces.

 

[KingMerv00]

I think there is something that is being ignored here: I initially acknowledged that my analogy was poor.

I thank you, Dr. Adequate, for developing a new analogy.

As I am trying to understand how things that appear to be discrete entities with wide temporal separation could be said to have developed one form another, I will have to ponder the lava lamp a little more.

Please don't forget that fossils aren't even necessary to prove the theory of evolution. Many different lines of evidence converge on one conclusion.

Take this genetic evidence for example.

 

[fuelair]

I may well be wrong - it would not be the first time-but when I read the OP something about both the phrasing and the example just did not hit me well.

I am not making any decisions yet but I am tending toward thinking Drkitten might be right - and hoping not - since I am biased towards people who genuinely want to add to their knowledge base.

 

[cbish]

mijopaalmc,
Is there a specific question you would like answered?
Is there a specific question or topic posed to you by others that you've had trouble with?

 

[fishbob]

I'm not sure my last post was as clear as it could be. Let's see if I can put it more clearly.

The reasoning goes like this:

* If the theory of evolution was true, then there were transitional species along certain lines of descent, e.g. dino-birds.

* If there were transitional species, then there should be intermediate forms in the fossil record, e.g. fossils morphologically intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

* Let's look at the fossil record. Here are the requisite intermediate forms.

* Therefore (and from other evidence, morphological, genetic, embryological, et cetera) the theory of evolution is true.

* Therefore, these dinosaur-bird intermediate forms (for example) represent transitional species along the dinosaur-bird family tree.

If mijopaalmc will venture away from vertebrates (the sexiest fossils for some, possibly anthropomorphic, reason) and look at clams, squids, snails, and the many varieties of microfossils, the sheer numbers of morphologically intermediate forms will knock his socks off.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The basic conceptual problem I have with evolution and the fossil record can probably be subsumed under the bigger question of how we perceive reality to be continuous even though we know that we receive information from our senses in discrete increments.

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous (much as projecting film at ~48 frames a second tricks us into believing the motion on a movie screen is continuous). In fact for us to believe that the day-long movie of evolution is one of continuous change intermediate forms would have to occur every 1085 years (i.e., 1/48th of a second in the day-scaled world) and be morphologically close enough to one another to make the "morph" seem smooth.

I am not saying this as a refutation of evolution as I believe that there are other strong independent pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution. Rather, I am simply asking whether the evidence we claim is provided by fossils is really as strong as we would like to think it is.

 

[The Atheist]

Hmmm.

I think you've actually been given that answer, so I'm wondering why you're fixated on the timeline idea.

You are giving me a little cause for concern after initially claiming trouble understanding. If it turns out that drkitten was right and you are in fact an IDiot in disguise, I'm going to have to apologise to her and that would make me very unhappy. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

 

[Hokulele]

The basic conceptual problem I have with evolution and the fossil record can probably be subsumed under the bigger question of how we perceive reality to be continuous even though we know that we receive information from our senses in discrete increments.

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous (much as projecting film at ~48 frames a second tricks us into believing the motion on a movie screen is continuous). In fact for us to believe that the day-long movie of evolution is one of continuous change intermediate forms would have to occur every 1085 years (i.e., 1/48th of a second in the day-scaled world) and be morphologically close enough to one another to make the "morph" seem smooth.

I am not saying this as a refutation of evolution as I believe that there are other strong independent pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution. Rather, I am simply asking whether the evidence we claim is provided by fossils is really as strong as we would like to think it is.

Read Stephen Jay Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Molinaro]

drkittenRight+=1;

I don't see any basis for the connection you make between a lack of continuity in our senses in very short time frames with the millions of years over which evolution operates.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous ...

Well, no, they don't.

In the same way, the pictures of the lava lamp wouldn't look continuous if your frame speed was 1.92 seconds, but it would look like a lava lamp would look if your theory of lava lamps was correct and you looked at a lava lamp every 1.92 seconds.

I am not saying this as a refutation of evolution as I believe that there are other strong independent pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution. Rather, I am simply asking whether the evidence we claim is provided by fossils is really as strong as we would like to think it is.

Well, how strong is it? Let's try comparing it with the null hypothesis.

Suppose that the fossils were not produced by evolution, and that the fact that they conform completely to the theory of evolution is the result of chance.

Well, if this is just by chance, what are the odds that it just so happens that we can find the fossils the theory needs, such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik and Morganucodon and Ambulocetus and so forth, in the strata where we expect them, without ever stumbling across one form that contradicts the theory?

Let's try working this out for vertebrate classes. There are 5 of these, so there are 4 intermediates permitted by the theory of evolution, and 6 which are forbidden.

So if chance alone determines what we find, the probability that all the intermediate vertebrate forms we find are the right ones is 0.4ⁿ, where n is the number of intermediate vertebrate forms.

The article [swiki]Intermediate Forms Between Classes[/swiki], which just gives a few examples, not a complete list, gives 28 examples.

0.4²⁸ = 0.0000000000072057594037927936

So on that very limited sample alone, the probability of the null hypothesis is 139 billion to one against.

Of course, this is all very much back-of-the-napkin stuff, but it shows you what sort of orders of magnitude of improbability we're talking about.

If we threw in all the fossil evidence --- can you even estimate the order of magnitude of the order of magnitude of how improbable the null hypothesis is?

 

[cbish]

The basic conceptual problem I have with evolution and the fossil record can probably be subsumed under the bigger question of how we perceive reality to be continuous even though we know that we receive information from our senses in discrete increments.

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous (much as projecting film at ~48 frames a second tricks us into believing the motion on a movie screen is continuous). In fact for us to believe that the day-long movie of evolution is one of continuous change intermediate forms would have to occur every 1085 years (i.e., 1/48th of a second in the day-scaled world) and be morphologically close enough to one another to make the "morph" seem smooth.

BTW, there isnt strong independent pieces of evidence for evolution. It's the overwhelming conglomeration of evidence from so many different areas of sciences that direct us to this conclusion.

I am not saying this as a refutation of evolution as I believe that there are other strong independent pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution. Rather, I am simply asking whether the evidence we claim is provided by fossils is really as strong as we would like to think it is.

Have you really studied this? There is ton's of info that will explain what you've been asking. It seems that you've either bought into whomever you've been talking to or you already have some deep seeded opinions already. The fossil record is probably the weakest evidence of evolution we have. It just happened to be the first. Unless you have a specific question, I suggest you do your own homework; if you really want to know!

 

[cbish]

BTW, the "strong independent evidence" for evolution isn't as stong as the overall conglomeration of evidence from so many different branches of science that lends it's strength to the theory.

So far your statements generally say, "I don't understand, therefore it's not understood!"

 

[fishbob]

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous (much as projecting film at ~48 frames a second tricks us into believing the motion on a movie screen is continuous). In fact for us to believe that the day-long movie of evolution is one of continuous change intermediate forms would have to occur every 1085 years (i.e., 1/48th of a second in the day-scaled world) and be morphologically close enough to one another to make the "morph" seem smooth.

If you have kids, you are an intermediate form.
I bet you were younger than 1085 when they were born.

 

[articulett]

Simply asking a question is a good start. Not beginning by writing phrases that are obviously suspect -- or creationist caricatures -- sis an even better one.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who could seriously write the sentence 'For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other' is actually a believer in evolutionary theory.

Indeed. Seems to completely fail to grasp evolution. And those creationists are a dishonest lot. Lying for Jesus. I think DNA is the so beautifully illustrates how very, very right Darwin was in a way he could never have imagined--and it's a continual treasure trove of information.

Since the Smithsonian, any natural history museum, National Geographic, Scientific American, The Leaky foundation, etc. etc. have so much information available across the web as well as photos--I think a person has to be almost purposefully ignorant not to understand the basics of evolution. Or perhaps just made stupid in youth by being told that faith is a good way to know the "truth".

 

[Dr Adequate]

More importantly, you're assuming (falsely) that no intermediates are found between two forms...

I don't think the post is confusing. I question its honesty.

I think his post is confusing, 'cos I think you're confused.

Mijopaalmc does not deny the existence of intermediate forms, he's just asking what we can make or them.

---

Let's try another analogy.

(1) I show you time-lapsed photographs of some corner of a forest, showing larger and larger versions of the same species of tree. "Aha", you say, "this is evidence of a tree growing."

(2) I show you time-lapsed photographs of some corner of a house, showing larger and larger versions of the same make of refrigerator. "Aha", you say, "this is evidence that someone keeps having his old refrigerator replaced with a better one of the same make."

(3) I show you fossils --- in effect, time-lapsed photographs --- of the fish-amphibian sequence. We want to know whether we are looking at a case like that of the tree, or a case like that of the refrigerator.

Suppose I claim --- as I do --- that these fossils are evidence of slow progressive change, like the photographs of the tree. Suppose I want to make this claim without commiting petitio principii.

Then what is my argument? This is a good question to which I believe I've given the answer.

 

[Taffer]

I'm forced to agree with drkitten on this one.

I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm forced to agree with drkitten on this one.

I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

As always, give 'em enough rope...

When someone comes in and professes honesty from the start, I'm going to take it at face value. If it's proven to be wrong, then nothing's lost as the OP would be a lie, in which case the poster can be safely ignored forever and ever.

Amen.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What would be the best way of demonstrating that my question is genuine?