Meedan wrote:I'm no expert on fossils, but I don't understand why you'd think there would be so many. It is not that common to find any preserved fossils, plus fossils can only form where there is the right type of sedimentary rock I believe.
It is true fossils are hard to find, but transitional fossils ought to be a significant percentage. I reason that to convert from species A to species B, from A you must pass numerous intermediate steps C, D, E, F, G, H, and so on, before reaching B. Of course, the number of intermediate steps varies, but they must be numerous because we are talking one species to another different species conversion here, i.e. there are enough differences to warrant more than a couple of conversion steps! So, how come that
for any two related endpoint species A and B preserved in the fossil record, their much more numerous intermediate conversion states C-H... are scantily preserved, when by the nature of the latter, they ought to be a significant portion of the total? In short: why are there so many
different species preserved in the fossil record, whereas intermediate forms representing a more or less gradual conversion from one to another are scanty, when the likelihood of a fossil being preserved is
equal for all fossils? The laws of probability dictate that the more numerous are going to be better represented, irrespective of the total number of fossils (within reasonable limit of course -- if there are 2 fossils total in the world, which fortunately is not the case, nobody can prove anything this way).
That one type ought to include far more numerous examples -- it is supposed to represent the transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, which are just as significant as the transitions within vertebrates that you new link covers (
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). Now, looking for adequate numbers (as percentage of all discovered fossils) that are transitional, let's look at only one poor example among many -- dogs, since Lachie mentioned them. On
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... art2a.html, we find:
Dogs:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).
Excuse me, but how many are there to illustrate its development? Can such a poor list prove its development from "undifferentiated dog/bear" to our dogs? Is the reader supposed to do a kind of a fill-in-the-blanks exercise with (by probability law) the much more numerous transitional forms that are not preserved for no reason, whereas the different species "endpoints" are?
I think you missed the entire point of the example. It shows that irreducibly complex systems can be broken down. It illustrates that there is a way that these types of systems can be formed gradually.
I don't think I have missed anything here.
Yes, complex systems can be broken down. Yes, there is a way that these types of systems can be formed gradually. There is a way... but can it be done without sophisticated intelligence?
Also, what do you mean "supposed natural selection process"? Those who survive longer, have more children... What is there to disagree with about natural selection itself?
We are discussing Darwinian natural selection here, not the general term. I'm sorry, it's Darwinian natural selection that is supposed. According to Darwin, natural selection has produced every species. Whereas according to contemporary scientific observations, if you survive longer, and have more children, your children are of the same species like you, and no ongoing species-to-species transition has been proven so far.
Do you accept the fact of micro-evolution?
[Micro-evolution is a fact. What stops you from extrapolating from this, to macro-evolution?
Micro-evolution is not a fact, because the effects observed could be due to built-in functionality that switches on or off according to environmental factors. It is indisputable that micro-adaptations happen, but they do not necessarily represent micro-evolution. Before you extrapolate, you first need to ensure all bases are covered.
If you understand evolution though, do you think it is significantly possible? Do you think that there is anything about evolution that can't have happened?
I don't think that a simple natural selection process can build the ultra-complex living creatures that even a single-celled organism is, not to speak of multi-celled organisms, and let us not even mention man with his (potentially) extreme intelligence.