Question about evolution?

Question

Why is there such a lack of transitional fossils in evolution? Does it ever make you question the validity of the theory? It seems to me that the idea of evolution existed before the evidence started coming in. Isn't it a bit like putting the cart before the horse. I would think true science would have wisdom enough to leave the options open and allow evidence to bring us closer to the truth, instead we are teaching Darwinian evolution of all species to each and every boy and girl in the public school system as fact when much still must be discovered in order to varify the claim.

Do any of you actually consider the lack of evidence in transitional fossils reason to question evolution when it comes to the origin of the species?

Why can't scientists reproduce a positive mutation in any animal so as to reproduce evolution in a controled environment?

Why is evolution taught as fact, concerning the origins of man, when the evidence backing such a claim is not 100% conclusive

Answer 1

Brother otter addressed your question and provided a good answer IMO.  You just chose to ignore it.  While on your soap box, perhaps you should open your mind to knew ideas.  Transitional fossils have in fact been found.  The problem is that once you find a transitional fossil, some anti-evolutionists will simply look for the next transition.  The truth is, animals evolved extremely rapidly into a particular niche and then generally maintain the "ideal" features evolved for that particular niche.  It is a concept known as punctuated equilibrium.  This is why there is a relatively narrow span of time that fossils can show "transitions".  In addition, fossils are often found in particular zones often buried by floods or volcanoes which limits the fossil evidence.  Scientist have produced positive mutations.  Many of our crops are genetically engineered.  The proof of evolution is about as strong as the proof that the earth isn't flat.

Answer 2

Posts such as this that question evolution on the basis of transitional fossils are red herrings. There are plenty of transitional fossils, but people who ask this question would rather ask questions that seek out the simple answers that are readily available.

Answer 3

ok to answer your first questions there are transitional fossils in some species.  just not humans so people argue over that.   and no it doesnt.

and the controlled eviroment question.    do you have a dog?  it doesnt say anywhere in the bible that dogs are domesticated by man, in fact it says that dogs are filth and men treat them as such.   and yet they are today.   the proof in a controlled enviroment is clearly there are different breeds of dogs that are different in genes.  they are not a different species but that has been a huge change over the small amount of time it took.  and how could there not be a transition between dogs and wolves?  you have fossils of wolves over a long period of time and than all of the sudden there are fossils of the wolves with homo sapiens which eventualy turned into fossils of dogs and eventually written accounts of domesticated dogs and now we have a chihuahua vs.  a wolf.  i think that is significant change.   i believe in evolution because it makes the most sense.  Alfred Wegener founded the tectonic plates theory because it made the most sense.  Gallileo said the earth was probably round out of inference and no proof.  and he was right.   they didnt need proof, they used logic from patterns that pointed to their theories.  i dont think that there is enough evidence to prove that antelopes have been the same for eternity just because they have been for 100,000 years.  and yet most religious types treat that little fact like its written in stone.  sorry for bashing on religion or creationist theory but your questions are so biased towards it that i have to.   why is creationist theory taught as an alternative when it is absolutly 0% conclusive with no evidence to back it up besides.  "wow! that eye looks so neat and complex,  theres no way that just came to be. "   just because evolution exists doesnt mean that creationism is completely wrong.  what kind of creator would hand sculpt each and every molecule in the universe in such a primitive fashion when (e.x.) he/she/it  could construct a formula for a seed to be planted and evolve and grow for eternity?   just like the fibonacci spiral which is a universal law.

Answer 4

Do not be fooled by the Creationists - there is no transitional fossils because all are transitional. If you do not understand that do science 101

Scientists are reproducing positive mutations everyday. Indeed meny do - its call breading. They do it with dogs, horses, cats, hamsters etc.

Its taught as fact because it is fact. It is only a few - very few who denigh it for their own power play.

Answer 5

Theories are never proven - they can only be dis proven.  Any scientist will tell you so.  Therefore, anyone teaching it should teach it as a theory and NOT fact.  By the way, anthropologists are the first to admit the more they find in the fossil record - the less they know.

I would really like to know who your mentors are on this subject - because I would first question the individuals giving you such wrong information.  Every anthropology professor I have ever had focuses more on doubt than they ever have on fact.  That's the way academics are.  They look at something they find int he ground - test it- analyze it - and make reasonable assumptions.  It's not exact and no one says it is.  And, I'm sure many anthropologists are happy to be wrong from time to time in order to promote further understanding of their field.

Answer 6

You wanted specific claims addressed, I can do so.  If you have further questions about anything that has to do with evolution, please email me.  I can probably answer most of your questions, I am open to polite discussion, and I am willing to take my time to explain it to you in a manner you can understand.

Lack of transitional fossils:  This claim isn't a good claim as disproof of evolution.  First, there isn't a lack of "transitional" fossils.  Every fossil found is a "transitional" fossil.  Every living species is a "transitional" species.  Imagine you have fossil 1 and 3.  You think, I need the transitional fossil of 2 to help support my hypothesis.  Soon, you find fossil 2.  Now you need "transitional" fossils 1.5 and 2.5 to support your theory.  Soon, you have them.  Now you need "transitional" fossils 1.25, 1.75, 2.25, and 2.75 to support your theory.  Basically, there can be endless "transitional" fossils, and to make a claim that the "lack" of them disproves the theory is not substantial.

Second, there are other fields that are completely seperate from one another that help support evolution than just the fossils.  These include (but are not limited to) Gene Theory (genetics),  Embryonic development, Geology, comparitve anatomy, and others.

The hypothesis of evolution started with fossil evidence and comparitive anatomy of living animals.  It remained a well debated subject in the field of science until recently, when genes were discovered.  The theory of evolution was in a crisis.  This new Gene Theory would either completely support evolution, or it would completely destroy it.  Turns out, it completely supported it, and the theory of evolution became one of the strongest theories we have today.

Positive mutation:  This is a slight misnomer.  First, there are 4 main types of mutation a chromosomal gene can go through: deletion, insertion, translocations, and inversions.  Second, anything a mutation can do, it can undo.  The majority of the mutations that happen are benign.  Some are harmful, and some are beneficial.  What determines harmful and beneficial are the individuals environment.  A white field mouse living in white sand has a benefit over its black sibling.  The black mouse is easily seen and killed by predators.  However, take those two mice and put them in a field of black rocks, and the black mouse now has the advantage. This example has been seen in the wild in one of the deserts of southern California.  All the white mice live in the white sands, the black mice live in the sands covered by black volcanic rock.

So, "positive" simply means a mutation beneficial to the organism.  Mutation simply means change.  As a side note, detrimental, benign, and positive mutations have been recreated in labs and in the wild.  Email me for specific examples.

Evolution taught as fact:  This is also a misnomer.  Evolution is taught as Theory.  In the field of science, a fact is an objective and verifiable observation.  A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for the facts seen.  An experiment will either disprove it or support it.  A Theory is a collection (usually large) of supporting hypothesis from many difference experiments that are repeatable and well substantiated.  In effect, you can't really go higher than a theory in the field of science.

Also, while there is much evidence for many of the theories in science, not a single one is 100% conclusive.  They're just very well supported.  We do not have all the answers.  We do not know everything.  We may, one day, come across something that disproves every theory we have, from gene theory, to the theory of gravity, to the theory of chromosomal inheritance, to the theory of evolution, to the theory of relativity.  However, as of this point in time, there is substantial evidence supporting each of those theories, and it is unlikely (although always possible) that any of them will be disproven.

Answer 7

If we were reading the fossil record as a book, it would tell us that all creatures and Vegetable matter,  alive or extinct just appeared on the earth fully formed and raring to go. A Mammoth is not an Elephant  and a Crocodile is not an Alligator. There are no; Nearly trees, or almost flowers. There are no almost Cows or nearly Goats. Just as there are no almost Apes and nearly humans  They are either what they are, or they are not. It's simple deduction. No matter how many wings or eyes you manage to grow on a fruit-fly;  It's still a fruit fly, and will always be a fruit fly.

Answer 8

Please note: it is still properly identified as a THEORY in any credible scientific text.  There is room for debate based on defensible fact.

Natural selection and evolution describe processes occuring around us every day.  Most are so slow we can't measure the changes.  However, natural selection has been conclusively demonstrated - antibiotic resistant bacteria like MRSA are a great example.  So there isn't a lack of evidence on this count.

Declaring that there is a "lack of transitional fossils" is like looking at a massive jigsaw puzzle with a lot of missing pieces and declaring that the puzzle doesn't make a picture just because we can't figure out how to line up what pieces we do have.  Those who research the fossil record have done an outstanding job of lining up what information is available.  Case in point: the National Geographic "Genographic Project" that traces the migration of the human race from it's origin in southeast central Africa across the planet.  This is an excellent example of tracing the fossil record that each of us carries in our own DNA, showing how humans changed in response to environment across millions of years as they moved around the globe.

Answer 9

Evolutionists have different camps, separated by belief, but a general agreement and so stated by them, is the fact that consistency in the theory is irreparable.  The so called missing links are in the millions and none forthcoming.  The theory they say has to be taken on faith.  Makes it kind of a religion doesn"t.

Answer 10

Evolution has been been proven...lots of fossils showing it.  you just dont want to believe it so you come up with some lame list of tired old questions just to start a fight.  Why dont you become a scientist yourself then and look for the answers instead.  Trolling here wont do it, slick.  Victim

Answer 11

The people who've told you there are no transitional fossils have been lying to you.

Whenever transitional fossils are found, they say, "Yes, but you don't have the transitions before and after it."

The evidence for evolution is both varied and overwhelming.

Yes, Darwin's line of reasoning about the basic mechanism did precede most of the evidence we've since ammassed -- that by no means invalidates it.

I WISH we were teaching evolution theory to all (I live in the US, and the non-scientific "Intelligent Design/Creationism" is taught in many places.)

Evolution IS fact. It HAS been verified.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Discribes the basic types of evidence for evolution (as I say, varied).

Here are some other sites:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/in...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bein...

We HAVE seen mutation happen. Have you nver heard of "super bugs" -- the bacteria resistent to anti-bacterial agents? THAT'S evolution.

We can see it happening because bacteria have very short generations. In longer-lived critters, since it take many generations to "see" evolution, we just can't in this short time. But we can see it in the fossil evidence.

Um, this wasn't A question, but a gabunch of them. Hope you enjoy the sits I linked to!

Answer 12

"Why is evolution taught as fact, concerning the origins of man, when the evidence backing such a claim is not 100% conclusive?"

Here's an example: It's raining and has been for a week. A friend walks into the room, dressed in rain gear, dripping wet. He remarks how much rain is out there. You explain this as him having been out in the rain and just coming in.

OK, prove it. Make it 100% conclusive. Yes, I'll be sharpshooting whatever you say.

What you have done is observed the facts and developed a theory that explains them. However, proof is difficult. Could the fire sprinklers have been on in the outside hallway? Could someone have dumped a pail of water on your friend? Could a hose be spraying water outside the window and your friend be lying? Yes to all. Sure, the odds of a hoax are very low, but can't be disproved.

In science "theory" which is what you developed based on the facts of rain, rain gear, and comments, means the same as explanation. The cry of "But it's only a theory." really translates as "It's only an explanation." You observe the facts, make an explanation, test it and others try to repeat the results. Keep “when the evidence backing such a claim is not 100% conclusive?" in mind. We’ll return to it.

“Transitional fossils” are also misnamed “missing links.” In the case of humans, the “missing link” supposedly would be half man, half ape. Just exactly what the critter would look like has never been described. Supposedly, according to creationists, the “missing link” is somehow a requirement for evolution. This is a red herring.

Consider the clothing worn by Louis XIV in the 1600’s (link below) High heels, tights, hair to the shoulders, elaborate coat, and walking cane. Now compare it to a current style (see Link) with shaved head, baggy, low riding pants, hats and oversized shirts. Now you’re asked to produce the “transitional style” that links the two. The question assumes somewhere there’s a single style that combines that of the 1600s and 2000s and is the sole link between the two. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

Here’s the known species of hominids that lead to us today.”

“Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)

Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.

Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.

Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.

Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.  

Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.

One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.

H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...

Good enough to show the lineage? Not to creationists. They will demand transitional fossils between each of the species. That is a ‘missing link” between archaic homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens. Again the ‘transitional fossil” will supposedly show a mix of the two but, nobody can describe it.

Go back to the style changes between 1600 and 2000. Is it possible to produce an authentic article of clothing for each style change? You might find some but often clothing is thrown away, cut up, or lost. The same is true with fossils “To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...

This doesn’t mean the record has impossible gaps or must have “missing links” to complete it. As with you friend in the rain gear, do you really need documentation that he come in from the rain and know exactly where he moved?

Lenski’s research with e coli bacteria has show evolution (see links) in action. Sufficient to say evolution is sufficient to answer “Why can't scientists reproduce a positive mutation in any animal so as to reproduce evolution in a controlled environment?” in a positive manner. Please read the links and the “Schlafy before” responding.

Return to “when the evidence backing such a claim is not 100% conclusive?" Asheley Montague wrote “Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.” Can creations prove that it’s impossible for “scientists reproduce a positive mutation in any animal so as to reproduce evolution in a controlled environment?” Can creationist prove that the human lineage must have “missing links” By “prove” the requirement is to reconstruct the missing link with supporting DNA information.

Answer 13

all animals are transitional animals. Some transition into other species, others simply die out.

Darwin developed the theory of evolution.He said that he didn't know how it was that animals could change over time, but the evidence showed that they did. Later on, his arguemtn could have been disproven with evidence that showed that animals hadn't changed over time, but of course that didn't happen. We have found nothing but more evidence suggesting that animals have changed over time. The difference between now and back then, is that we have a theory which has tried to explain how animals could change over time.

Answer 14

"Why is there such a lack of transitional fossils in evolution? "

There isn't.  Because of the geological conditions required for fossil formation, there are only a few areas of any particular age that contain any fossils.  Fossil bearing areas are rare and when you find one it only exposes a certain age at any exposed spot on the ground.  You are restricted to a relatively few sites.  They still uncovered mountains of fossils.  To call that a lack of transitional fossils is just ignorance of geology and wishful thinking.

"Does it ever make you question the validity of the theory?"

No



"It seems to me that the idea of evolution existed before the evidence started coming in. Isn't it a bit like putting the cart before the horse."

That is because the idea is obvious and it relates to the experience of farmers who domesticate animals.  It didn't even require the mountain of fossils or the DNA evidence or the many other sorts of corroborating evidence.  

"I would think true science would have wisdom enough to leave the options open and allow evidence to bring us closer to the truth, instead we are teaching Darwinian evolution of all species to each and every boy and girl in the public school system as fact when much still must be discovered in order to varify the claim."

It isn't just Darwin's evolution.  It is established science.  There isn't even the tiniest shred of scientific doubt. The only doubt exists in the minds of religious people and people pretending to be scientists.  It would be tragic to teach intelligent design as a rational scientific alternative.  It is nothing but an attempt to get around the supreme court order of teaching religion in school.  There is absolutely nothing valid about their ideas.  Just because some may be too ignorant to know the flaws of the arguments of "intelligent design" doesn't make them an alternative.  It makes them propaganda.

"Do any of you actually consider the lack of evidence in transitional fossils reason to question evolution when it comes to the origin of the species?"

It is a flawed statement as I said before.  

"Why can't scientists reproduce a positive mutation in any animal so as to reproduce evolution in a controled environment?"

Someone just did that.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

"Why is evolution taught as fact, concerning the origins of man, when the evidence backing such a claim is not 100% conclusive"

The evidence is so ridiculously overwhelming that it would be really foolish for anyone who understands the subject to doubt it.  It is 100% conclusive as much as the Earth orbits the sun and we are not the center of the universe.

Answer 15

Take a look at some of the flightless cormorants of the Galapagos Islands, about half way through this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yinbqly6t...

If this doesn't convince you that they started off as flying creatures, and could well end up as something similar to penguins, well, it's the best example of a transitional stage that I could find.  And they aren't fossilized, they are there now to look at, and think about.

If you don't believe God is omnipotent enough to create evolution, it's your choice.

Why do you wish to set limits on what God can and cannot do?