It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fossil Record

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I used to be someone who believed in Darwin. Yet after thinking very hard about the topic, I have begun to lead more towards creation or some other explanation that allows animals to appear and not evolve.

My main point is, where is the fossil record for evolution? After a recent visit to a museum I realized there are no in-between animals for us to look at. There is no sort-of Giraffe. And no evidence of the multitude of animals we know today evolving. There were drastically different species, but no obvious sign of millions of years of slow change. Where did the elephant cousins, who were tiny, and trunkless get so large? Why do we not see a slow progression of a growing trunk through fossil record? What caused widespread species to not have the original branches of their species to still exist somewhere. It is relatively easy for species to become isolated from each other around the world, yet they all seem almost exactly the same. Why does a Camel in Afghanistan look like a Camel in Eqypt. Doesn't it make sense that there would be a considerable amount of species seperated and evolving differently, yet being the same animal?




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Keep in mind that there are planty of fossils waiting to be dug up that represent many unknown species.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
And there was also an ice age, so that could have destroyed some of them, or like webmonkey said, they could just be out there somewhere



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mxboy15u
I used to be someone who believed in Darwin. Yet after thinking very hard about the topic, I have begun to lead more towards creation or some other explanation that allows animals to appear and not evolve.

My main point is, where is the fossil record for evolution? After a recent visit to a museum I realized there are no in-between animals for us to look at.

Archaeopteryx, or any of the 'dino-birds' are excellent transitional forms.


But this brings up antoher sort of problem. All Fossils are theoretically transitional, because the 'transition' is between species, not between these non existant 'kinds' of animals.



There is no sort-of Giraffe.


giraffe evolution
Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.




And no evidence of the multitude of animals we know today evolving.

There is an extensive and well known fossil record for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, tetrapods from primitve non-tetrapods, and mammals from non-mammals.



There were drastically different species, but no obvious sign of millions of years of slow change.

Phyletic Anagenesis has been established in the fossil record, but more importantly its now widely thought to not be the mode by which evolution occured. Basically,as postulated by Mayr, species originate thru the 'peripatric mode', in which smaller sub populations of a species become isolated on the periphery of the main population's range. There they have a smaller gene pool and a differnt selective pressures and possibly a radically different gene pool because of the founder effect. It is here that they are able to develop the 'reproductive isolating mechanisms' and different adaptations that will not only distinguish it from the 'ancetral' parent population but prevent them from re-breeding it and being consumed in it. So One should not expect slow gradual change being preservd in the fossil record. Darwin himself realized that this slow imperceptible change wasn't present in the record, largely, and figured it was in large part because of the nature of fossilization, which is basically haphazard and unlikely to preserve entire complete series in a particular location over extremely long times.


Where did the elephant cousins, who were tiny, and trunkless get so large? Why do we not see a slow progression of a growing trunk through fossil record?

Since trunks are fleshy, they won't be preserved directly. However, here Is a page that focuses on elephant origins and evolution.


What caused widespread species to not have the original branches of their species to still exist somewhere. It is relatively easy for species to become isolated from each other around the world, yet they all seem almost exactly the same. Why does a Camel in Afghanistan look like a Camel in Eqypt.

Because they are under similar conditions and performing similiar functions. Camels evolution is also well documented www.talkorigins.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here.
Also, to the point you brought up just above, lamas still exist today, and are a group that broke off from the "camel" group a long time ago. They are different than camels, and are living under different conditions performing different functions.

Doesn't it make sense that there would be a considerable amount of species seperated and evolving differently, yet being the same animal?

No, I don't think it would. If they are evolving differently, then how would they be the 'same animal'? Also, homology shows that something like what you are talking about has happened. Birds, lizards, bats, monkey and horses all have the same bones in say, their hands and feet, but they have been modified for different specific functions. In essence, its a bunch of different groups of fish "evolving differently, yet being teh same animal'.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Please don't assume that one museum will have a complete sequence or will offer comprehensive evidence for evolution. Museums simply can't afford the space and people wouldn't understand a long sequence of fossils that look "mostly alike" to the non-paleontologist.

You could see a good sequence of them if you can get access to the back rooms at the Smithsonian. Unfortunately, these archives are open mostly to scholars and researchers and not the curious. But they have a vast quantity of material and if you knew what you were looking for, you could trace what you wanted easily.

The Talk Origins archive has the latest (in English and comprehensible) material -- usually:
www.talkorigins.org...



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join