Now that we have our own forum, we can discuss the merits and failures of evolution, on an entirely scientific level.

We need not discuss Creationism, and various other religous mumbo~jumbo, please leave that for OT.

So please, as no theory is water tight, what are the weak points of the evolutionary theory, and how has it evolved since first proposed?

So please, as no theory is water tight, what are the weak points of the evolutionary theory, and how has it evolved since first proposed?

The fact we can't find the lacking rings. For example which race was the first man? White? Asian? Black?

It's imperfect because there too many factors in nature that's impossible to find the real origins of man

An do we need to be able to track all of mans evolution in order to prove it?

Can we not do it with other animals?

Showing macroevolution in short lived animals within a lab condition?

For example which race was the first man? White? Asian? Black?

According to the Out of Africa theory, the first humans had white skin covered entirely with black hair, then as the hair was lost in most body parts, the skin (of all humans) became black, which remains unchanged in the black populations today. Then after this some those that moved out of Africa became white again while the others retained the black skin.

Amazing something seemingly as low cost as pigmentation is lost through evolution.

Its not all that amazing really. Just think of what happens when you get a tan and then don't go outside for a while, you lose the tan. YOur body senses it has no need for the pigment, and disposes of it. Same thing happened to early humans. In Africa the skin color provided protection from the sun, which became pointless once the humans migrated north.

Its not all that amazing really. Just think of what happens when you get a tan and then don't go outside for a while, you lose the tan. YOur body senses it has no need for the pigment, and disposes of it. Same thing happened to early humans. In Africa the skin color provided protection from the sun, which became pointless once the humans migrated north.White skin also allows better production of vitamin D, which makes it beneficial when away from the equator.

I've heard that human evoultion is still in course. For example whites are advanteged in zone with weak sun and make more sons in these zones. Instead black are advantaged in zone with strong sun and make more sons in these zones. This explain why blacks are the majority in africa and white are the majority in europe

I think its more a case of migration.. or the lack of it.

I've heard that human evoultion is still in course. For example whites are advanteged in zone with weak sun and make more sons in these zones. Instead black are advantaged in zone with strong sun and make more sons in these zones. This explain why blacks are the majority in africa and white are the majority in europe
Blacks would get enough Vitamen D in Europe to survive as well as whites, and near the equator whites would have a greater potential of developing skin cancer and sun burn. So each had an advantage in their environment, but with sunscreen and Vitamen D supplements, it doesn't matter that much anymore.

The validity of the Miller/Urey experiment has been called into question recently. Since the results of the experiment are fundamental to any theory of scientific evolution, research into either a) refuting the criticism or b) creating an alternative theory on how primitive amino acids were created would be good.

The criticism is that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was not a reducing atmosphere (and so the molecules present in the Miller/Urey experiment were not correct). It is not readily obvious that an oxidizing atmosphere would still allow the production of primitive amino acids.

can you linky please? I'd like to read about that some more

Something along the lines of this: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

The basic idea of the criticism is that the atmospheric molecules are wrong, therefore it can't represent primitive Earth. Oddly enough I first found out about this criticism browsing an Ann Coulter book :lol:

The validity of the Miller/Urey experiment has been called into question recently. Since the results of the experiment are fundamental to any theory of scientific evolution, research into either a) refuting the criticism or b) creating an alternative theory on how primitive amino acids were created would be good.

The criticism is that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was not a reducing atmosphere (and so the molecules present in the Miller/Urey experiment were not correct). It is not readily obvious that an oxidizing atmosphere would still allow the production of primitive amino acids.
That is interesting and I would like a link, but the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't concern evolution, instead but the origin of life.

EDIT: You gave the link before I could post, now that's prompt!

I do remember hearing about it.

An as ever we have to be careful of delving futher back.. espcially the amin acid covered metiorites!

That is interesting and I would like a link, but the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't concern evolution, instead but the origin of life.

EDIT: You gave the link before I could post, now that's prompt!

Isk, if you cant propose how things began on earth..the 1st step of evolution as it were.

But this is isk.. it doesnt knock the rest of evo

:blush: This is my first time in the colosseum. I like to debate science (I studied chemical physics as an undergrad).

I brought up the Miller/Urey criticism because it provides a fundamental challenge to evolution. However if you guys don't want to talk about it since it's more origin of life rather than evolution, that's fine.

About evolution: any macro structure that doesn't appear to have any use during a formative stage is subject to an attack by anti-evolution theorists. For example, poison glands of a snake + hollow fangs is one situation (I don't remember if this particular instance has been refuted). The poison glands of a snake are linked through the hollow fangs but hollow fangs by themselves don't appear to have any functional role. You'd think having hollow fangs would actually result in decreases in structural integrity. So why would natural selection make these two separate systems evolve together to result in the form that we know of now?

Mate, this is the Colosseum, we throw opinions around like candles in the wind ;)

Never take offence.

Say what you believe, give time for others to listen.

We were not attacking you by discounting it.. its a discussion after all, we need to have differeing opinions or nothing will get said ;)

About evolution: any macro structure that doesn't appear to have any use during a formative stage is subject to an attack by anti-evolution theorists. For example, poison glands of a snake + hollow fangs is one situation (I don't remember if this particular instance has been refuted). The poison glands of a snake are linked through the hollow fangs but hollow fangs by themselves don't appear to have any functional role. You'd think having hollow fangs would actually result in decreases in structural integrity. So why would natural selection make these two separate systems evolve together to result in the form that we know of now?


Thinking about just that example.. what are the most primitive "biter" snakes like?

Do they simply have poison glands in the mouth?

Perhaps "randomly" ;) one snake has a slight ridge in its tooth.

This minor change, meant the venom got into the prey that little bit easier.

Evolution begins to swing to teeth+poison.

Over many many forums, the tooth has a fully evolved channel.

I do not see it as a hollow tooth, more the tooth evolved a channel inwhich to transfer the venom...


Is my arguement hollow? ;)

very true Shyuhe, I am uncertain of how to provide proof for the hollowed fangs, but i do recal reading an article about snake venom and its pharmeceutical properties. To the point I remeber reading that there are molecules in the venom of snakes that are also present in the liver and other organs. I could study snake venom/evoltuion in depth.

It is somewhat impossible to prove something if you can not recreate it in a controlled enviroment. Also when people debate, study evolution they tend to avoid the truth, so that they can find proof to support their claim.

snakes have alot of differneces between each other, but overall they have held their genetic standards for a very long time.

No offense taken Abaddon. I was more commenting that it may be OT from the OP.

So let's assume you start with two types of snakes. One has poison glands but the poison can't be administered through teeth. The poison is used internally for some other use (perhaps anti-infection?). It's perfectly plausible that this system will evolve on its own. Let's assume the second snake has hollow channels in its teeth but no poison glands. For the sake of argument, we'll say the advantage in these hollow channels are that they're easily made/replaced (since they're not solid).

Now each system can evolve on its own. But the problem I see is when you try to combine the two systems. Assuming we cross the two snakes, you get a snake with poison glands and hollow teeth. But the these two systems are independent at this point. So you would require some spontaneous aberration to create the snake that links the poison glands to the hollow teeth. This seems like a pretty big evolutionary jump - hence my reluctance to buy into it on its face. I feel like there has to be an intermediary step to account for this evolution but it's not apparent what that intermediate is.

In case it got missed:

Thinking about just that example.. what are the most primitive "biter" snakes like?

Do they simply have poison glands in the mouth?

Perhaps "randomly" ;) one snake has a slight ridge in its tooth.

This minor change, meant the venom got into the prey that little bit easier.

Evolution begins to swing to teeth+poison.

Over many many forums, the tooth has a fully evolved channel.

I do not see it as a hollow tooth, more the tooth evolved a channel inwhich to transfer the venom...


Is my arguement hollow? ;)

:blush: This is my first time in the colosseum. I like to debate science (I studied chemical physics as an undergrad).

I brought up the Miller/Urey criticism because it provides a fundamental challenge to evolution. However if you guys don't want to talk about it since it's more origin of life rather than evolution, that's fine.
Yeah, no problem. As Abbadon said, say what you think, let others discuss it with you, it might lead to something interesting. IMO, your Miller/Urey criticism could be the subject of a new thread about how life came about.

Thinking about just that example.. what are the most primitive "biter" snakes like?

Do they simply have poison glands in the mouth?

Perhaps "randomly";) one snake has a slight ridge in its tooth.

This minor change, meant the venom got into the prey that little bit easier.

Evolution begins to swing to teeth+poison.

Over many many forums, the tooth has a fully evolved channel.

I do not see it as a hollow tooth, more the tooth evolved a channel inwhich to transfer the venom...


Is my arguement hollow? ;)
That makes a lot of sense, but shouldn't we see snakes who have that vestigal system? Maybe, I'm not sure about that though.

There should be fossil records of that evolution (teeth a pretty good thing to fossilize) or as you say, the intermediary positions still in existance.

But, fossils are actually very rare, and we only can categorise different spcies through fossils alone, because ususally samples have thousands of years between them..

Also potentially, squeezing snakes, and venom snakes totally out completed the internediarry stages?

Tho I would have thought there should be live examples... then again.. we don't have much between us and chimps..

@Abaddon:

Even if the poison gland is in the mouth, you still need some sort of channel to connect the teeth to the gland. That's the leap that I'm struggling with. I'd analogize it to something like attaching a new channel between your liver and your stomach. While the end result is useful, it seems like a pretty big jump to just "spontaneously" connect the two in one generation. If you don't connect it in one generation, what evolutionary advantage would you get from having a partially completed channel? Extra energy spent generating an otherwise useless partial channel would seem to be selected against...

As i said, it doesnt need to start as a hollow at all, merely a slight deformation of the tooth.. would begin the selection process


The snake with its glands up against a tooth (so it gets squeezed as bites) will have advantage aswell, helping to unite the two.

Any slight ridge that would help channel the flow of poison into the wound would be a begginging.. then the channel deepends with evolution,, aventually it closes off until a tunnel is within the tooth?

For example which race was the first man? White? Asian? Black?

We share a common ancestor. That's like asking whether the first primates were monkeys, chimps, or humans :)

Micro evolution, is basically proven, however macro evolution is much harder to prove, but also the best explanation to date.

How it all started is another matter, was it chance, a creator, aliens, or a comet, and how did they get there in the first place?

About evolution: any macro structure that doesn't appear to have any use during a formative stage is subject to an attack by anti-evolution theorists. For example, poison glands of a snake + hollow fangs is one situation (I don't remember if this particular instance has been refuted). The poison glands of a snake are linked through the hollow fangs but hollow fangs by themselves don't appear to have any functional role. You'd think having hollow fangs would actually result in decreases in structural integrity. So why would natural selection make these two separate systems evolve together to result in the form that we know of now?That's because you need to step back from the situation and try and work out how it could have happened, and you'll come up with conceivable answers. Such as: Do non-poisonous snakes have hollow teeth.

Often, sceptics have said that the evolution of the human eye can't be explained, which it can. Our eyes are effectively inside-out. Evolution does that to things, because it does not necessarily produce the best situation. Imagine a line drawn across the screen with peaks and dips. The higher each point, the higher the fitness. Let's say the highest point is over on the left, but the point where the organism currently is, is over on the right. It would have to cross over a lot of unfitness to get to the best place. Instead it's going to climb to the top of the nearest peak. People often say we lack intermediates, which is false in so many cases. For example, there is a nice blend between invertebrates and vertebrates, with extra features evolving along each step.

'Twas a blob of oil in a puddle with some amino acids and RNA alkaloids.

I'm waiting for a creationist to jump in and start explaining how ID is a scientific theory, and therefore belongs here.

Shall we place bets on it? I bet one will do it in 3 days.

We share a common ancestor. That's like asking whether the first primates were monkeys, chimps, or humans :)

Well the answers not humans obviously...

I'm waiting for a creationist to jump in and start explaining how ID is a scientific theory, and therefore belongs here.

Thats for OT, if they read the opening post.

@ Shyuhe - Stephen Jay Gould spent a tremendous amount of literary energy showing, using concrete examples from the fossil record, numerous examples of just the sort of evolution the snake fang / venom gland problem presents.

Macro evolution, in thousand upon thousands of very tiny, discreet, incremental steps, builds structures that appear at first glance to be magically designed to fit their purpose. Even Darwin saw that, and wrote quite eloquently on the topic. I was really surprised at how accessible The Origin of Species is! :)

As an example, here's a link to an article (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda's-thumb.html) SJG wrote, discussing the evolution of a digit on a bear, and comparing it to some of Darwin's work with orchids. The example I linked to, unfortunately, doesn't refer directly to the fossil record (the changes both happened too fast, or in soft-tissue anatomy, to be recorded in the fossil record), but if you like I can find some articles that do indeed use the fossil record to detail intermediate forms. :hatsoff:

SJG was a wonderful writer, and his essays for Natural History are among the best examples of science writing of all time.

That's because you need to step back from the situation and try and work out how it could have happened, and you'll come up with conceivable answers. Such as: Do non-poisonous snakes have hollow teeth.

Often, sceptics have said that the evolution of the human eye can't be explained, which it can. Our eyes are effectively inside-out. Evolution does that to things, because it does not necessarily produce the best situation. Imagine a line drawn across the screen with peaks and dips. The higher each point, the higher the fitness. Let's say the highest point is over on the left, but the point where the organism currently is, is over on the right. It would have to cross over a lot of unfitness to get to the best place. Instead it's going to climb to the top of the nearest peak. People often say we lack intermediates, which is false in so many cases. For example, there is a nice blend between invertebrates and vertebrates, with extra features evolving along each step.

However, this ignores the question about the impossibility of proving macro evolution (we'll stick to the snake fang/venom gland as an example of this). How can you prove macro evolution via scientific testing? The best approximation you have is micro evolution extrapolated to an organismal scale. For example, you can show that bacteria will evolve to develop antibiotic resistance. Then you extrapolate from this micro evolution that macro evolution is possible. Micro evolution is readily provable by a controlled experiment because the fast generational turn over rate produces "rapid" change. However macro evolution of slower turnover organisms are impossible to prove using the same sort of experimental design.

Logic and hypothesizing are good - it gives us ideas as to why things may have happened the way they did. However, the true hallmark of a controlled repeatable experiment is impossible to apply to all instances of macro evolution. Thus, macro evolution will always suffer a similar fault to intelligent design - you can't actually prove that it happens because we don't currently have the means to prove that it works. Fossil records etc. are retrospective - they show how things changed over time but it's by no means a "controlled experiment" in which we can selectively manipulate variables.

Please don't flame me for categorizing evolution in the same group as intelligent design. However, if you're going to choose to believe one or the other, you should be aware of the fundamental shortcomings. Yes Darwinian evolution is a much better scientific theory because large parts of it are testable. However it's not full proof.

Even if the poison gland is in the mouth, you still need some sort of channel to connect the teeth to the gland. That's the leap that I'm struggling with. I'd analogize it to something like attaching a new channel between your liver and your stomach. While the end result is useful, it seems like a pretty big jump to just "spontaneously" connect the two in one generation. If you don't connect it in one generation, what evolutionary advantage would you get from having a partially completed channel? Extra energy spent generating an otherwise useless partial channel would seem to be selected against...

If the energy cost is neligable then random selection and neutral drift can keep the new characters in the population. If something has a very small fitness cost then it can take a very long time to remove it from the population - see the appendix and wisdom teeth. Selection is not the be all and end all of evolution, some work has been done since darwin you know ;).

Plus you're making a mistake of timescale; To return to the snake example say ot takes ten generations to develop a grooved tooth and a dozen to generate poisen glands, then the chance of them both occuring is very low. But if we look at the numbers it can assumed if they are evolving seperately then it will take 120 generations to produce an optimised venom groove - and so what? We have millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations.

Finally in this particular example the venom glands evolved from digestive enzyme glands in the mouth - so there are already ducts connecting them to the base of the teeth ;).


However, this ignores the question about the impossibility of proving macro evolution (we'll stick to the snake fang/venom gland as an example of this). How can you prove macro evolution via scientific testing? The best approximation you have is micro evolution extrapolated to an organismal scale. For example, you can show that bacteria will evolve to develop antibiotic resistance. Then you extrapolate from this micro evolution that macro evolution is possible. Micro evolution is readily provable by a controlled experiment because the fast generational turn over rate produces "rapid" change. However macro evolution of slower turnover organisms are impossible to prove using the same sort of experimental design.

Logic and hypothesizing are good - it gives us ideas as to why things may have happened the way they did. However, the true hallmark of a controlled repeatable experiment is impossible to apply to all instances of macro evolution. Thus, macro evolution will always suffer a similar fault to intelligent design - you can't actually prove that it happens because we don't currently have the means to prove that it works. Fossil records etc. are retrospective - they show how things changed over time but it's by no means a "controlled experiment" in which we can selectively manipulate variables.


"I have three bananas, but since we've never seen anyone with seven bananas, we can't be sure that such large numbers of bananas are possible, and your crazy 'seven banana hypothesis' is unsound!"


Please don't flame me for categorizing evolution in the same group as intelligent design. However, if you're going to choose to believe one or the other, you should be aware of the fundamental shortcomings. Yes Darwinian evolution is a much better scientific theory because large parts of it are testable. However it's not full proof.

Yeah there are some parts of the theory of evolution that can't be experimently tested and can only be shown by making predictions and discovering supporting phenomen. But hey it is far more provable and coherent a theory than the current 'theory of gravity', so I'm going to keep on using it as an opperating assumption thank you very much ;).

Thats for OT, if they read the opening post.

We are betting who will be the first to ignore it and write it here anyway.

However, this ignores the question about the impossibility of proving macro evolution (we'll stick to the snake fang/venom gland as an example of this). How can you prove macro evolution via scientific testing? The best approximation you have is micro evolution extrapolated to an organismal scale. For example, you can show that bacteria will evolve to develop antibiotic resistance. Then you extrapolate from this micro evolution that macro evolution is possible. Micro evolution is readily provable by a controlled experiment because the fast generational turn over rate produces "rapid" change. However macro evolution of slower turnover organisms are impossible to prove using the same sort of experimental design.

Logic and hypothesizing are good - it gives us ideas as to why things may have happened the way they did. However, the true hallmark of a controlled repeatable experiment is impossible to apply to all instances of macro evolution. Thus, macro evolution will always suffer a similar fault to intelligent design - you can't actually prove that it happens because we don't currently have the means to prove that it works. Fossil records etc. are retrospective - they show how things changed over time but it's by no means a "controlled experiment" in which we can selectively manipulate variables.

Please don't flame me for categorizing evolution in the same group as intelligent design. However, if you're going to choose to believe one or the other, you should be aware of the fundamental shortcomings. Yes Darwinian evolution is a much better scientific theory because large parts of it are testable. However it's not full proof.It's as close to proof as anything in science can be, though.

Mutations happen
They are selected for or against
As it is hereditary, the allele spreads more (or less) in the population, and may or may not become fixed.
It's common sense. I've never been to Australia. I can't prove it exists. Even those who have been there cannot "prove" it exists. Just seeing it is not "proof".

Take a look at bacteria and antibiotic resistance. That's evolution in action, at a rapid pace. Take a look at the domestication of dogs. I highly doubt Great Danes and Chihuahuas can breed. Therefore they are biologically separate species. If you want me to admit a shortcoming then it's simply that evolution takes a long time, and it will likely be a long time until we can observe exactly when a species changes (which is a blur anyway). However, that doesn't take anything away from evolution as a concept at all, it just means that unfortunately we won't be able to make those against it shut up.

Has there been any evolutionary work on fruitflys?

yes and no starworms. It's as close as our current abilities in that particular field of science allow. But if you compare it to the rigor that's applied to a simple cause-effect of say... an acidic environment on protein denaturation rates, the difference becomes more obvious. You can't test macro evolution for slow turnover organisms because we won't live to see the results. Whereas you can test the effect of pH on protein denaturation pretty readily (short time scale). There is a distinction here in the rigor that's applied.

And great danes and chihuahuas should be able to breed. Unless I'm mistaken, I thought all domesticated dogs are still classified as canis familiaris.

@Disenfrancised: Your choice to accept Darwinian evolution as an "operating assumption" hits the mark of the point I'm trying to make though. The OP was about the possible shortcomings of the theory of evolution and this is a shortcoming. However like you, I find this shortcoming of little consequence when deciding my own personal beliefs.

edit: actually reading back over what you wrote starworms, you can disregard most of my post :lol:

And great danes and chihuahuas should be able to breed. Unless I'm mistaken, I thought all domesticated dogs are still classified as canis familiaris.


They can be bred, but only via artifical insemination due to problems of a... mechanical interlock nature ;).


@Disenfrancised: Your choice to accept Darwinian evolution as an "operating assumption" hits the mark of the point I'm trying to make though. The OP was about the possible shortcomings of the theory of evolution and this is a shortcoming. However like you, I find this shortcoming of little consequence when deciding my own personal beliefs.


I'm just pissed that no one ever complains about the theory of gravity coming up short, despite Evolution being rather more coherent ;).

Has there been any evolutionary work on fruitflys?

Since twenty seconds on searching through journals with evolution in the title has give me 567 results...I'm going to go with yes and hoping that you were joking ;).

by the amount of lectures I slept through on them, it was more a delicate poke for the discussion to go that way.


Also, anyone watch David Attenborough's Life in Cold Blood? On that there was a recorded example of behavioural change, which now is exhibited by the entire population.. hence evolution?

by the amount of lectures I slept through on them, it was more a delicate poke for the discussion to go that way.


Also, anyone watch David Attenborough's Life in Cold Blood? On that there was a recorded example of behavioural change, which now is exhibited by the entire population.. hence evolution?We've changed our behaviour over the last 100 years considerably, but that doesn't mean we've evolved. You'd also have to link that behaviour directly to a gene.

Behavioural evolution is as important as physicaly evolution. Especially when it is an example free from human intervention.

I've heard that human evoultion is still in course.

Evolution is an ongoing process that never stops. (as long as there is life)

I do not see it as a hollow tooth, more the tooth evolved a channel inwhich to transfer the venom...


Is my arguement hollow? ;)

Not at all - AFAIK, there are even today snakes which have a groove, not a closed channel, to channel the poison! :goodjob:


So let's assume [snip] But the problem I see is when you try to combine the two systems.

Exactly - it will not work! And that's why you must look for a different way of getting the poison into the closed channels. E.g. a groove, which is later closed by the sides closing over it until they touch.

Remember that this can happen at a very early stage in ontogenesis, even before the teeth are formed. All you need to do is to slightly re-arrange some of the cells that will later form the teeth.

Micro evolution, is basically proven, however macro evolution is much harder to prove, but also the best explanation to date.

Actually it is very simple to prove that it happens: the fossil record!

Unless you assume a horrendous number of instant creations, how do you explain the many cases of slightly different forms having a slight temporal separation?
E.g. ammonites: all through the Jurassic of Central Europe you can follow early forms, then - in thin sediment slices of only a few tens of meters - new but extremely similar forms, and again, and again, and again..... over tens of millions of years.

Now, if the new form is not descendant from the very similar previous form, where did it come from???????


How it all started is another matter, was it chance, a creator, aliens, or a comet, and how did they get there in the first place?
Again, as others have said before: the start of life is not the topic of evolution, but abiogenesis. I think it would be better to keep this for a separate thread, since the theory of evolution does not cover it, and the science involved has very little in common with that involved in evolution.

Why don't you make an abiogenesis thread?

They can be bred, but only via artifical insemination due to problems of a... mechanical interlock nature ;).
Which is exactly whcih Canis familiaris is not an easy species to define: those two sub(?)-species are actually separate species, as they are morphologically different to the point of not being able to interbreed and produce fertile young.

So C. familiaris is actually a ring species - you can find a continuous row of sub-species between danes and chihuahua that CAN breed, but the extremes of that row can not.

The same is know e.g. from sea gulls, a certain group of which forms a ring around the Arctic, with the two extremes inhabiting the same areas of Northern Europe (yes, they overlap!) but unable to breed.

Yeah, speciation is the production of viable young by the apprent "crosses"

How do we obtain evidence of 'macro' evolution (I object to that term btw): wait. In a thousand years we'll have mounting evidence of evolution of macroscopic species.

Or you can look at ongoing speciation events: my favourite examples are horses/donkeys and lions/tigers. Both these species pairs are still semi-fertile across species.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Does anyone know of a comprehensive source of data on 'transitional fossils'? I mean images of what fossilized material has been recovered as compared to what has been extrapolated and how this fits in to a sequence of specimins?

Yeah, speciation is the production of viable young by the apprent "crosses"

hu?

not really - speciation is the accumulation of traits that disallow breeding with an ancestor. Not necessarily the direct parent generation (although that is possible), but any previous generation.

This explains why it is so hard to notice speciation - it is not necessarily a 'this is where it happened' thing! If you spread a ring species over time you get the same picture: each intermediate sub-species can breed with its neighbors (time-neighbor or space-neighbor, whichever), but not the start and end.

How do we obtain evidence of 'macro' evolution (I object to that term btw): wait. In a thousand years we'll have mounting evidence of evolution of macroscopic species.

As I said: the fossil record is proof, unless you want to assume a million ad hoc hypotheses - perpetually repeated creation!


Does anyone know of a comprehensive source of data on 'transitional fossils'? I mean images of what fossilized material has been recovered as compared to what has been extrapolated and how this fits in to a sequence of specimins?


Actually, the term 'transitional fossil' only makes sense within a frame - 'B is transitional between A and C'.

And no - listing them is thus not possible, as any fossil is transitional between two other organism, which we may or may not know as fossils. I can only recommend looking at foraminifera or ammonite or nautiloid development over time!

Example: Sutneria species from the Nusplingen Plattenkalk.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/129469/sij101-2a.jpg


See how the forms differ slightly and appear over time?

The inverted commas are there for a reason Simon! ;)

The inverted commas are there for a reason Simon! ;)

Oops!


I should have realized that, sorry.

Fossils are a poor way of showing evolution, we can show it in a more relevant certain manner with bacteria and fruitflies.

I hereby officially award Abaddon 10,000,000 'bumping your own threads' points. :)

Fossils are a poor way of showing evolution, we can show it in a more relevant certain manner with bacteria and fruitflies.
That's right. Fossils can have been planted by Slartbartifast :lol:

Evolution in todays age , will be irrelevant for human population unless we find a very fast way to abuse it. Why ? We simply can create everything we wish that evolution would need thousands of years to accomplish. Who knows one of our inventions could be speeding up the process.

Certainly there is lots of work on yeasts to help establish more efficient reactions.

Fossils are a poor way of showing evolution, we can show it in a more relevant certain manner with bacteria and fruitflies.

fossils are abundant proof positive of the fact of evolution. millions of genera involved. fruit flies are just one single genus.

In fact, there is lots of other evidence beside fossil which agree with fossil records.
One of them are the genetic code. The universal use of the same genetic material (DNA) to encode the recipe for any organism is a powerful fact in support of evolution from a common origin. In addition, the genetic code differ from each species, but the degree of difference between two species is positively correlated with the time passed since their divergence from a common ancestor, which is determined by fossil record. Some section of genetic code are even nearly identical in every organism.