13Likes
September 4th, 2013, 06:25 AM
Has transitional animal fossils been found? How many? And are the real or frauds? Links please
titles says it all.
and what i mean transitional animal fossils, i mean caught between the act of evolution of creatures that are in-between of now-a-day's known creatures
Originally Posted by jocular
supported links with website addresses please.
thank for replies
its helping a lot
sorry for being long-gone for a few months, had a lot of school work to do, but im back
Originally Posted by jocular
Is this homework? Or are you using these to support your contention in a discussion at a different locale with someone else?
All fossils, and all living animals, are transitional forms.
You won't find a fish with one leg, for example. But you will find a huge variety of fish including some who use their fins to walk on the seabed, others who spend a significant time out of water, some who lay eggs, some who have live young, some who ... all have come from some earlier form and are on their way to another form.
Please learn what a transitional fossil is.
Your "definition" is meaningless.
nope, the answer i gotten from that thread was: "they did exist, but between apes to humans lived in tropical region, and they cant be found due to the way it is decomposed in that environment."
so im finding if there are any transitional fossils found,not only between apes to humans.
Originally Posted by jocular
As PhDemon says, we've done this all before.Has transitional animal fossils been found? How many? And are the real or frauds? Links please
titles says it all.
and what i mean transitional animal fossils, i mean caught between the act of evolution of creatures that are in-between of now-a-day's known creatures
As Strange says, since evolutionary pressures are around all the time, all creatures, living or extinct, are transitional between their ancestors and what their descendants become (provided they have some). Nevertheless, the evolutionary pressures on a given group of creatures are not uniformly great throughout time, so at some periods their evolution will be more rapid than at other times (punctuated equilibrium and all that). There are famous examples of animals that appear in between what we regard as major groups, such as Archaeopteryx.
Here is a longer list, which includes examples of forms intermediate between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals and nice ones such as land mammals and whales: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for "frauds", anyone who thinks a list this big has been fraudulently created needs to be (a) a world-class conspiracy theorist and (b) possibly in need of medical help.
Have you ever tried digging through past photos of yourself to find the transitional period between when you became a baby to a adult (or teen)? There’s no single photo where you could state this is the photo where I became a baby to an old man.
I think, the same when digging up fossils. There’s no single fossil where you point out a dinosaur became a bird. Like your growing up process, the transition is very gradual.
transitional fossils, example, a reptile with feathers.
or does an animal only have scales, and no feathers in one generation; and then in the next generation, only have feathers, and no scales?
according to this
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/yutyrannus-huali-feathers/
so, one generation scales, feathers the next?
where's the transition?
Originally Posted by jocular
No.
You ought to try reading the article more comprehensively in the future, as the second paragraph answered your question.
Possibly between Day 1 to Day 21,914,531,944 if the estimate is accurate enough to your liking.
RamenNoodles, the one thing you need to get your head around is geological time - parents and children and grandchildren are clearly still of the same species, but over time, plenty of time, descendants may not be the same species in that if you put them together with their ancestors they could produce successful offspring
think ring species but in time rather than space
besides, what's wrong with the idea of feathers sprouting from inbetween scales ? chickens have feathers, but look at their feet : aren't those scales on the lower leg ?
Ramenoodles, Scoodydoo1 partly addresses this. However one further point should be made.
When you think about it, finding preserved fossil examples of life forms depends on a number of relatively rare factors of coincidence coming together. You need the animal to die and be buried before being consumed by other creatures or bacteria. You need the ground in which it is entombed to be transformed into sedimentary rock, without gross deformation or heating, throughout the tens or hundreds of millions of years that have elapsed between when it died and when it is found. And then you need geological uplift and erosion to weather the rocks down to the point that the fossil comes to the surface once again. And then someone has to find it. Ask yourself what proportion of all the animals and plant types that have ever lived is likely to have been preserved and discovered.
It is not reasonable, then, to expect that a seamless and continuous record is available, showing every stage of every adaptation. What we have in palaeontology is a jigsaw with over half the pieces missing. That's inevitable. In fact, what is remarkable, given these gaps, is that so many connections between different fossils can be made. This in itself is powerful evidence of the relatedness of different creatures. Clearly you don't see to see anything like all the creatures, to be able to detect the patterns of similarity and change.
Creationists have a silly habit of demanding evidence of every single stage of evolutionary transformation, and jumping up and down with infantile glee when this cannot be done, claiming it shows defects in the theory of evolution. A moment's serious thought shows the stupidity of this conclusion.
I don't know that definition. But my husband is alive and well.Please learn what a transitional fossil is.
Your "definition" is meaningless.
has fossils of modern plants and animals been found among dinosaur fossil layers?
Originally Posted by jocular
There are fossils of some plants and animals that are still around (sometimes only the same genus, not the same species). Look up Ginkgo biloba or cycads or other so-called "living fossils".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
Note: the reason those plants and animals are (largely) unchanged over all that time is because of ... EVOLUTION!
Note: the reason those plants and animals are (largely) unchanged over all that time is because of ... EVOLUTION!
what do you mean by that?
wouldn't evolution change those plants/animals?
especially about how many generations passed
Originally Posted by jocular
Well, we know that reproduction of genes is not perfect. Errors, both big and small, will occur. If there were no selection of the results (*) then organisms would gradually change randomly over time. Because these "stable" organisms are well suited to their environment (and, presumably, their environment hasn't changed significantly) then selection (*) removes the variants that differ too much. And so the population stays (largely) the same.
(*) i.e. evolution.
"Something to ask is: If you say that they haven't evolved over hundreds of millions of time due to constant conditions. And they didn't evolve as a progression from sea creatures to reptiles etc like the fossil record "Drawings" show.Then whats the difference between that and evolution not happening at all?"-My christian friend replied me
may i kindly seek a reply, without evolution being a presupposed fact?
Originally Posted by jocular
it is a fact....so how can you reply w/o that?
I think you will need to rephrase that. It's very hard to see what you mean. Are you talking about those organisms that seem to have changed little over geological time? Or something else?
There is, as usual, a basic misunderstanding about how evolution works.
Basically, each individual within a species has some variations. No two individuals are exactly the same. Once in a while, a mutation might produce a large change. In any case, the environment selects on these traits, i.e. those that are able to produce more viable offspring, (due to being able to get more food, being better at impressing females, better at evading predators, etc, etc) are the "fittest". But when the environment stays more or less the same and the organism is already well adapted to the specific niche, then there is little or no selection pressure from the environment. Under these circumstances relatively little about the organism will change and those that start to slowly move into other niches will experience different selection pressures and evolve into new species.
Thing is, when it comes to fossils, all we have to work with is that which gets fossilised. That means that we are talking about the skeleton, maybe feathers sometimes, etc. However, there are many other aspects that can evolve, i.e. all the soft tissues, behaviour, etc. When you look at convergent evolution, it is no surprise that a general body plan that is adapted to a certain environment will not change much if the environment doesn't change much. When people talk about organisms that have not changed in many millions of years, they are talking about the general body plan mostly and usually they are not exactly the same animals either.
For instance, there are humans who are lactose intolerant and others who are not. Normally mammals lose the ability to digest milk as they reach a certain age, but some human populations with a history keeping milk producing animals have developed into keeping the ability to digest milk into adulthood. That is a prime example of evolution at work where you would not be aware of the change from the fossil record alone. Modern looking humans have only been around for up to 200 000 years. Imagine what can happen in millions, especially when an extinction event suddenly opens up a wealth of new niches for the surviving organisms to evolve into.
Like I said earlier, this illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how evolution works. Try to think of life as a replicating molecule (DNA) that has developed all sorts of methods to extract energy and building blocks from the environment and to reproduce. Each organism is essentially a machine evolved to be able to do that within a certain niche and whenever a random variation enables that organism to extract energy and reproduction potential from a new niche, that variation becomes beneficial and opens the way for that organism to experience new selection pressures and evolve away from it's predecessors. However, the niche it originated from has not suddenly disappeared, so the cousins that did not have the variations that enabled it to enter a new niche will just carry on regardless in the original niche.And they didn't evolve as a progression from sea creatures to reptiles etc like the fossil record "Drawings" show"
You should also avoid thinking about evolution as organisms progressing towards more complexity or towards being more advanced. While the general trend is often like that due to competition, it is not what evolution is about. Evolution is about variation getting selected upon by the environment. There are many examples of organisms evolving towards less complexity when that offers an advantage.
Well, evolution obviously is an observed fact. Denying that is like denying gravity. So we can ignore that particular piece of idiocy.
What is up for discussion are theories of how evolution occurs. Our current best theories are all based around the central idea that there is variation in a population (an observed fact) which is inherited (an observed fact) and that these variations can lead some sub-groups of the population to be more or less successful at breeding and/or surviving (an observed fact). There is, of course, room for an awful lot of complexity and additional mechanisms around this basic idea.
This means that the the variants who have the best fit to their environment are likely to have more offspring (who themselves are a good fit to the environment) than those who do not fit the environment so well. (This is where the widely-misunderstood slogan "survival of the fittest" comes from - it is "best fit to the environment" not "healthiest" or "strongest").
So, based on all the above observed facts it is hard to see how evolution could not occur.
Now, in the case where a population is very well suited to its environment and there are no significant changes in the environment then the same selection (i.e. evolutionary) mechanisms outlined above will act to keep the population largely the same.
But note that it is not that these organisms do not change at all. If you look at any "living fossils" you will find that there are both physical and genetic differences over time. But there are all generally "neutral" with regard to the ability to survive and procreate in that environment.
Now, if your friend wants to take a narrow, non-scientific, definition of evolution as "change" then the alternative response is "so what". Even if there are a few organisms that have not "evolved" over that time, the other 99.9999999% obviously have.
I have no idea what that means. We have both fossil and genetic evidence of the evolution "from sea creatures to reptiles etc".And they didn't evolve as a progression from sea creatures to reptiles etc like the fossil record "Drawings" show.
Oh, I see. They are suggesting that these "living fossils" just "appeared" magically in that form and never changed. Er, no. They evolved from earlier forms just like everything else. Then they found themselves in a good place and stayed there.
A (rather poor) analogy. Some people change their hairstyles throughout their lives, keeping up with the current trends. Others don't, and keep the hairstyle they had in their 20s or 30s for the rest of their lives. If you look at such a person in their 80s, say, would you assume they were born with that hairstyle? No, you know it "eveolved" in their early years then they decided it was successful (fit) and it stayed that way ever since.
Last edited by Strange; September 8th, 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason: removed some ambiguity
There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
There is a lot of uncertainty about the evolution of feathers (which is obviously jumped on by "creationists of the gaps") but this page seems to have some good information: Feather evolution
why not?
can't scales able to be fossilized/preserved?
Originally Posted by jocular
two questions:
1) It has come to my attention that flowering plants existed during the dinosaur period. Then why does artist impressions portray dinosaur habitats without flowering plants, without much, if any, mammals, if they existed that time? Would it be misleading?
https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=dinosaur+habitat&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=g0MtUuqU JIasrAfMgoDADw&biw=1092&bih=544&sei=hEMtUvz1NcmOrQ evxICoDw
2) Had any single primate and/or human's fossils been found among/at any single dinosaur site?
Originally Posted by jocular
Probably because it occurred to some of them that their artistic license can only be applied "so far" before people view their works as ridiculous. I've constantly struggled to suppress laughter whenever I think back on this particular issue of National Geographic.
Feces, Bite Marks Flesh Out Giant Dino-Eating Crocs
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Because they are artists, not scientists. (There are a few that are both but they are rare.)
Doubt it, since the closest thing to a primate at the end of the dinosaur's era looked more like a rodent.2) Had any single primate and/or human's fossils been found among/at any single dinosaur site?
This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
Artists are artist, but also scientists.. there is science in creating things.....not just artistry.
There is science in mixing paints..to do art...there is science in creating a sculpture, carving a bowl, throwing a pot, there is science in doing a show, there is science in music, there is science in all of the Arts.
They are just a different "science".
did the skin show feathers or scales?This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
or fur?
Originally Posted by jocular
But you would not call the experts in any of these fields "scientists".
Because whatever science there is in these disciplines, science is not where the core of their expertise lies.
There are a number of skin impressions now, which is how we know that many of them had feathers. Some of them had scales. Some of them had pebbly skin. But skin impressions are fairly rare and usually very incomplete, and as I said before, early paleontologists simply assumed that dinosaurs were reptiles and presented them as such. This is not a controversial statement, I am confused about what you are finding in it to argue about.This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
ETA even now, there is plenty of controversy over skin and other soft tissue impressions, and many of what were once thought to be scaly skin impressions have been determined not to be skin or even dinosaur-related at all.
your initial post wasThere are a number of skin impressions now, which is how we know that many of them had feathers. Some of them had scales. Some of them had pebbly skin. But skin impressions are fairly rare and usually very incomplete, and as I said before, early paleontologists simply assumed that dinosaurs were reptiles and presented them as such. This is not a controversial statement, I am confused about what you are finding in it to argue about.This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
ETA even now, there is plenty of controversy over skin and other soft tissue impressions, and many of what were once thought to be scaly skin impressions have been determined not to be skin or even dinosaur-related at all.for dinosaurian skin. I was pointing out that that statement is not accurate. Skin impressions were found fairly early on and are still being found.There has never been any evidence
None show fur. Depending on the dinosaurian group fossils with scaly to pebbly skin or scales with feathers and protofeathers are known.did the skin show feathers or scales?This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
or fur?
You mean ... gasp ... a transitional form !!!1!
I'm sorry, you're right. I should have said there has never been any evidence that all dinosaurs were scaly, and what evidence does exist was found long after the initial assumption was made that dinosaurs were scaly based on their presumed resemblance to reptiles.your initial post wasThere are a number of skin impressions now, which is how we know that many of them had feathers. Some of them had scales. Some of them had pebbly skin. But skin impressions are fairly rare and usually very incomplete, and as I said before, early paleontologists simply assumed that dinosaurs were reptiles and presented them as such. This is not a controversial statement, I am confused about what you are finding in it to argue about.This is incorrect. There have been a number of instances where dinosaurian skin impressions have been preserved as fossils. Notably for Saurpods, hadrosauroids, and Ceratopsians (off the top of my head) Also several "mummified" dinosaur specimens showing the skin.There has never been any evidence that dinosaurs were ever covered in scales. It was an assumption that early paleontologists made based on nothing but the presumed resemblance of the fossils to modern reptiles.
ETA even now, there is plenty of controversy over skin and other soft tissue impressions, and many of what were once thought to be scaly skin impressions have been determined not to be skin or even dinosaur-related at all.for dinosaurian skin. I was pointing out that that statement is not accurate. Skin impressions were found fairly early on and are still being found.There has never been any evidence
You are correct.But you would not call the experts in any of these fields "scientists".
Because whatever science there is in these disciplines, science is not where the core of their expertise lies.
| « Bigger T-Rex then Sue/FMNH PR 2081? | peopling of the americas » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
