Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You see, the problem with that is that the source is from a creationist/intelligent design bent. The editors are Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole and you would be much better off investigating the work of Professor Ewan Fordyce who actively researches cetacean evolution. New Zealand is fortunate enough to have an excellent fossil record for cetaceans, particularly around Oamaru, and he also travels widely to 'offshore' fossil sites.

Radiation of Extant Cetaceans Driven by Restructuring of the Oceans

The remarkable fossil record of whales and dolphins (Cetacea) has made them an exemplar of macroevolution. Although their overall adaptive transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic organisms is well known, this is not true for the radiation of modern whales. Here, we explore the diversification of extant cetaceans by constructing a robust molecular phylogeny that includes 87 of 89 extant species. The phylogeny and divergence times are derived from nuclear and mitochondrial markers, calibrated with fossils. We find that the toothed whales are monophyletic, suggesting that echolocation evolved only once early in that lineage some 36–34 Ma. The rorqual family (Balaenopteridae) is restored with the exclusion of the gray whale, suggesting that gulp feeding evolved 18–16 Ma. Delphinida, comprising all living dolphins and porpoises other than the Ganges/Indus dolphins, originated about 26 Ma; it contains the taxonomically rich delphinids, which began diversifying less than 11 Ma. We tested 2 hypothesized drivers of the extant cetacean radiation by assessing the tempo of lineage accumulation through time. We find no support for a rapid burst of speciation early in the history of extant whales, contrasting with expectations of an adaptive radiation model. However, we do find support for increased diversification rates during periods of pronounced physical restructuring of the oceans. The results imply that paleogeographic and paleoceanographic changes, such as closure of major seaways, have influenced the dynamics of radiation in extant cetaceans.

There are also others researching this:

Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

Partial skeletons of two new fossil whales, Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis, are among the oldest known protocetid archaeocetes. These came from early Lutetian age (47 million years ago) strata in eastern Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Both have an astragalus and cuboid in the ankle with characteristics diagnostic of artiodactyls; R. balochistanensis has virtually complete fore- and hind limbs. The new skeletons are important in augmenting the diversity of early Protocetidae, clarifying that Cetacea evolved from early Artiodactyla rather than Mesonychia and showing how early protocetids swam.

Locomotion and Behavior of the Ancient Whale Georgiacetus

Georgiacetus vogtlensis is one of the most primitive archaeocetes (ancient whales) from North America. Discovered in the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain of Georgia in 1983, it has been interpreted as semi-aquatic, but shows important adaptions toward fully aquatic behavior, including the lack of articulation between the pelvis and sacral vertebrae. Among all protocetids, Georgiacetus is most closely related to the clade Pelagiceti, which includes the common ancestor of all fully aquatic archaeocetes and their descendants, including modern whales. The goal of this study is to elucidate aspects of Georgiacetus locomotion and behavior that are closely related to both semi-aquatic and aquatic lifestyles by comparing the skeletal morphology of the lumbar region of Georgiacetus to modern mammals of a known lifestyle. Unlike previous studies using muscle scarring, this investigation into those changes in skeletal morphology that occurred during the land-to-sea transition of whale evolution was achieved via multivariate analyses of 17 measurements of lumbar vertebrae from more than 30 modern and extinct mammals. Lumbar vertebrae were used because they likely underwent the most drastic changes during the early stages of whale evolution, as dorsomobile archaecetes evolved relatively quickly from dorsostable artiodactyls.

Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution

The last two decades have witnessed an explosive growth in the number of fossils documenting the origins of Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). An excellent morphological series of transitional cetaceans is now available to document the transition from land to sea, and many sophisticated analyses detail the biology of these archaic cetaceans. The origin of whales now offers a spectacular example of evolutionary change, allowing us to chart changes in anatomy and physiology as whales first moved into the water and then gradually explored the open seas.

So, no, it is not "a good article for your thread." It is hogwash and faerie dust.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You see, the problem with that is that the source is from a creationist/intelligent design bent. The editors are Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole and you would be much better off investigating the work of Professor Ewan Fordyce who actively researches cetacean evolution. New Zealand is fortunate enough to have an excellent fossil record for cetaceans, particularly around Oamaru, and he also travels widely to 'offshore' fossil sites.

Radiation of Extant Cetaceans Driven by Restructuring of the Oceans

The remarkable fossil record of whales and dolphins (Cetacea) has made them an exemplar of macroevolution. Although their overall adaptive transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic organisms is well known, this is not true for the radiation of modern whales. Here, we explore the diversification of extant cetaceans by constructing a robust molecular phylogeny that includes 87 of 89 extant species. The phylogeny and divergence times are derived from nuclear and mitochondrial markers, calibrated with fossils. We find that the toothed whales are monophyletic, suggesting that echolocation evolved only once early in that lineage some 36–34 Ma. The rorqual family (Balaenopteridae) is restored with the exclusion of the gray whale, suggesting that gulp feeding evolved 18–16 Ma. Delphinida, comprising all living dolphins and porpoises other than the Ganges/Indus dolphins, originated about 26 Ma; it contains the taxonomically rich delphinids, which began diversifying less than 11 Ma. We tested 2 hypothesized drivers of the extant cetacean radiation by assessing the tempo of lineage accumulation through time. We find no support for a rapid burst of speciation early in the history of extant whales, contrasting with expectations of an adaptive radiation model. However, we do find support for increased diversification rates during periods of pronounced physical restructuring of the oceans. The results imply that paleogeographic and paleoceanographic changes, such as closure of major seaways, have influenced the dynamics of radiation in extant cetaceans.

There are also others researching this:

Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

Partial skeletons of two new fossil whales, Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis, are among the oldest known protocetid archaeocetes. These came from early Lutetian age (47 million years ago) strata in eastern Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Both have an astragalus and cuboid in the ankle with characteristics diagnostic of artiodactyls; R. balochistanensis has virtually complete fore- and hind limbs. The new skeletons are important in augmenting the diversity of early Protocetidae, clarifying that Cetacea evolved from early Artiodactyla rather than Mesonychia and showing how early protocetids swam.

Locomotion and Behavior of the Ancient Whale Georgiacetus

Georgiacetus vogtlensis is one of the most primitive archaeocetes (ancient whales) from North America. Discovered in the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain of Georgia in 1983, it has been interpreted as semi-aquatic, but shows important adaptions toward fully aquatic behavior, including the lack of articulation between the pelvis and sacral vertebrae. Among all protocetids, Georgiacetus is most closely related to the clade Pelagiceti, which includes the common ancestor of all fully aquatic archaeocetes and their descendants, including modern whales. The goal of this study is to elucidate aspects of Georgiacetus locomotion and behavior that are closely related to both semi-aquatic and aquatic lifestyles by comparing the skeletal morphology of the lumbar region of Georgiacetus to modern mammals of a known lifestyle. Unlike previous studies using muscle scarring, this investigation into those changes in skeletal morphology that occurred during the land-to-sea transition of whale evolution was achieved via multivariate analyses of 17 measurements of lumbar vertebrae from more than 30 modern and extinct mammals. Lumbar vertebrae were used because they likely underwent the most drastic changes during the early stages of whale evolution, as dorsomobile archaecetes evolved relatively quickly from dorsostable artiodactyls.

Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution

The last two decades have witnessed an explosive growth in the number of fossils documenting the origins of Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). An excellent morphological series of transitional cetaceans is now available to document the transition from land to sea, and many sophisticated analyses detail the biology of these archaic cetaceans. The origin of whales now offers a spectacular example of evolutionary change, allowing us to chart changes in anatomy and physiology as whales first moved into the water and then gradually explored the open seas.

So, no, it is not "a good article for your thread." It is hogwash and faerie dust.

All you did was attack the source, your sources are biased from the other camp, same difference.

They quote known evolutionists who admit to the faults found in evolution in the article, but you wouldn't know that because it appears you snubbed your nose to it as a kneejerk reaction.

My question is what exactly makes a piece of matter organic or inorganic? Maybe it is a false dichotomy we have imposed on microscopic particles.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I "attacked the source" because the source was faulty. I then provided sources from researchers who let the evidence do the talking. It's not the same thing.

The fact that you employ 'evolutionists' says it all, really.

I did read the article. It seems you haven't read my links, given the amount of time between my posting and yours....

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Your source material, while quoting Gould, entirely ignores punctuated equilibrium and instances of genetic bottleneck events which are responsible for a vast array of population explosions and explosions of variation. Also, the quote regarding whales is based on current whale populations after centuries of being hunted to the brink of extinction by humans. It does not account for populations of proto-whales shortly after the split from Mesonychids and the evolutionary time frame would not be prohibitive to their taking fully to water. And it doesn't even include the added fact that it was another 4MYA between the split from Mesonychids and becoming partially aquatic. You can't just cut the time frame at an arbitrary point and then shout Eureka! as though you've discovered the truth of it all.

a reply to: WHWIV

A few differentiations-

1. Organic compounds are the result of activities of living beings while inorganic compounds are created either due to natural processes unrelated to any life form or the result of human experimentation in the laboratory.
2. Inorganic compounds can make salt, while organic cannot.
3. Organic compounds contain carbon, while inorganic do not.
4. Organic compounds have carbon-hydrogen bonds, while inorganic do not.
5. Inorganic compounds contain metal atoms, whereas organic compounds do not.
6. Organic compounds are biological and inorganic are mineral in nature.
7. Organic compounds are part of a class of chemical compounds the molecules of which contain carbon and hydrogen, while inorganic compounds mostly comprise of metal containing compounds even if they happen to exist in living organisms.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WHWIV

A few differentiations-

1. Organic compounds are the result of activities of living beings while inorganic compounds are created either due to natural processes unrelated to any life form or the result of human experimentation in the laboratory.
2. Inorganic compounds can make salt, while organic cannot.
3. Organic compounds contain carbon, while inorganic do not.
4. Organic compounds have carbon-hydrogen bonds, while inorganic do not.
5. Inorganic compounds contain metal atoms, whereas organic compounds do not.
6. Organic compounds are biological and inorganic are mineral in nature.
7. Organic compounds are part of a class of chemical compounds the molecules of which contain carbon and hydrogen, while inorganic compounds mostly comprise of metal containing compounds even if they happen to exist in living organisms.

Ok I can grok that, only a couple questions

Regarding point 1, we have actually made simple amino acids (building blocks of life) in a laboratory.

As for 2; I make salt water when I cry. My body is capable of processing salts.

3? Carbon is one of the most abundant molecules on our planet. Coal for example. Is coal alive? What about diamonds?

5... We do contain iron in our blood.

7... it would possibly refute my counterpoints concerning Point 2 and 5. That I will concede.

Excellent discourse, nonetheless.

a reply to: WHWIV

In addition to your other points, organic compounds have been found in space as well. Proto planetary discs (newborn solar systems) are one place they are being located for example. So yes, it's not Quiteas cut and dry as I posted.

As for coal, it is a fossil fuel comprised of previously living organic compounds. Diamonds, being comprised of coal, are technically organic as all Carbon containing compounds are considered organic.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Technically evolution goes all the way back to the beginning of time and space. So rather than focusing on apes, I focus on what created the universe and existence itself.

No it doesn't and that would be idiotic.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So much inaccuracy in this post...

For one, we DO have tons of fossils that depict different stages of evolutionary development for MANY if not most of the species on the planet.

Sorry, but no. We DO NOT have a fossil record that depicts most of the species on the planet. On the contrary, we know next to nothing about most of the species that have ever existed.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: JUhrman

I've been done. It's like arguing with a bunch of people who claim to know everything about everything. There is never a debate because both sides bring zero to the table. Yet, if someone sheds light on the fact that we know nothing they get ridiculed. Enjoy walking through life with your illusions of facts from fiction.

Right and you are one of those people too.... You brought nothing new to the debate...we could just as easily argue that you claimed to know everything....in my first post I wrote we don't know the end result...and no one flamed me. No one on the planet knows 100% sure of anything in regards to evolution or god..no one...anyone who says they do is full of #. And that goes for both sides. And you will be enjoying the same illusions and facts from fiction.

Well for me it's very EASY to prove that MAN created god !

Names of god(s)

Take your pick from the list above, man created god(s) to explain things they didn't understand.

Sun, Moon, Rain, Thunder etc etc the Chinese thought when an eclipse happened it was a dragon eating the Sun do you think that is correct?

God(s) were used to explain the world around them, in that link above from all over the world people believed in their gods and the creation stories that went with them, they can't all be right BUT they can all be wrong!

I would suggest watching the Big History play list, bloody good watch and you may learn something. But in the first 54 seconds of the video it explains that we dont know everything but we have a good idea and to understand it is to understand all theories

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

What always pisses me off about this stuff is that evolution is a theory...its a good theory..and the best the scientific community has. But it isn't the Law of Evolution....its a theory. Religious nuts like to jump in and bash it anyway they can to prove their god....

They (the nuts) often use the 'its just a theory' argument asthough it's just a guess, an idea. That would be called a hypothesis in science, while a scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon. It's basically the highest standard in science.

Yes. And unlike religion, science allows for new evidence to change and evolve that theory.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I totally agree with what you are saying! I'm implying that there could be some unknown force, spirit, space ghost, entity out there somewhere that was the cause of everything. However I don't believe that whatever that is is...they give two #s for us or made some book to give to us.

There is a possibility that something else is out there. I don't believe it....but I also can't fully write that off.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
I'm sorry, but the majority of intelligent ATS members left years ago. Sorry if I touched a nerve Barcs, but a science denier I am not and I'm tired of repeating my stance regarding the universe and evolution. I'll leave so you guys can share your infinite knowledge. I'll guarantee you this thread doesn't get humanity any closer to the answers. Even with all the so called "intelligent folks" who understand science. Good luck though.

You give yourself too much credit. Strike a nerve? Please, you made a bunch of blatantly wrong claims and they were corrected by folks that actually understand the science behind it. This site is all about denying ignorance, is it not? Accusing folks that disagree with you of being upset rather than backing up your posts and offering logical counterpoints, only reaffirms it, as does your use of fallacies. It's hilarious that you think that understanding evolution and how it is a biological process unrelated to cosmology means that we think we have infinite knowledge. Nobody thinks that they know everything, but they DO know that you are wrong in those claims about evolution and big bang.

Well, is this forum all about my theory now? I'm wanting to hear some of your intelligent insights. It's been said already that I am a d**khead, ignorant and I've been repeatedly ridiculed for what I've shared. So sorry if I sound like a d**khead, but I was kind of blind sided by the lack of respect and civil discussion I was hoping to have. So what if you disagree. Such negative energy and it's contagious.

You came in the thread acting like your view was absolute truth and got upset when folks corrected you on the wrong claims about evolution and the big bang. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you continued to try to justify it with fallacies. I didn't insult you, I corrected your misunderstanding with evolution.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

So saying, " BUT, They are different fields of science" is the most irrelevant point in this whole debate, nobody is saying they haven't been classified and defined that way by humans. Reality still stands and it's all linked together.

The topic should be about naturalism or materialism then. Nobody is saying that it's not linked, but the claim that you need to understand every single thing about to the universe to understand evolution as it works on earth as a biological process is dead wrong. The evolutionary process happens, whether life / universe was created or it was not created. Knowing the answer to god/creation bears no affect on evolution itself, although if there is a creator one would think that they would have created evolution as well.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So much inaccuracy in this post...

For one, we DO have tons of fossils that depict different stages of evolutionary development for MANY if not most of the species on the planet.

Sorry, but no. We DO NOT have a fossil record that depicts most of the species on the planet. On the contrary, we know next to nothing about most of the species that have ever existed.

Well depends on what your looking at larger mamal's like yes we do if your talking small ones like rodents we hardly have any. So guess it depends on which side of the coin you look at. Want to know horses cows foxes bears lions tigers etc they are almost complete.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: peter vlar

Philosophical debate that is sincere is not trolling.
Sometimes the reactions can be entertaining as well.

Here is a good article for your thread.

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Source

They even get into and debunk the often mentioned Whale land to water scenario cited by evolutionists,

Whale evolution now runs into a severe problem. The fossil record requires that the evolution of whales from small land mammals would have to have taken place in less than 10 million years. That may sound like a long time, but it actually falls dramatically short, especially given that whales have small population sizes and long generation times. Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and puts it this way: "Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time."

Do you have a source that isn't a creationist propaganda site? Sorry, but that site has been caught lying numerous times, so its credibility is in question.

You don't seem to realize this, but anybody can claim anything on the internet. Just because somebody says so, doesn't make it true.

If you want to claim science is wrong, you need to use science itself to show this, not some guy's personal opinion that is he arrived at using faith. Science uses peer reviewed experiments to determine facts, not just some random guy making claims. I know you do not like this, but it's the way it is.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: [post=19267392]PhotonEffect
Well depends on what your looking at larger mamal's like yes we do if your talking small ones like rodents we hardly have any. So guess it depends on which side of the coin you look at. Want to know horses cows foxes bears lions tigers etc they are almost complete.

I've never understood why folks equate not knowing everything to knowing next to nothing. They act as if they KNOW how much we don't know, but they don't. It's just a baseless argument. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that what we DO know is wrong or faulty. It's a ridiculous argument.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I certainly believe in adaptation and a certain level of species drift. I also believe dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans and when they died they left fossils. What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism, then it in turn over millions of years evolved into both genders in every species until humanity happened. I have threads on both those topics right now, but this one is on fossils

Let's start from beginning, title is wrong, fossils support evolution, it not just that it seems that way. Now, part that you refer to have a problem with has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is not proven yet, but its closest we have. There are couple promising projects, but none yet provide complete repeatable evidence that living organism can be created from mater. Just give it some time.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.
And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that. And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.

Firstly, there is no such a thing like missing link, there are many fossils that support evolution, but keep in mind that not everything get fossilized. Actually fossilization is quite rare, and most of previous life on earth we actually use daily. It is called 'fossil fuel'. What do you think, why would they be called that way?!

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As an example, this guy if you found his skeletal remains from 40 million years ago, it could be thought to be the ancestor to a much bigger dinosaur, in the evolutionary line of development, but he actually isn't, but he stayed the same, 40 million years latter he is still the same.

Unrelated species... and just because it looks that way, does not mean its directly connected. Some species did not change much, while other change a lot. Look at T-Rex and its closest living relative, chicken. Things get interesting when you get genetic expert switching genes on chicken and bringing back long lost through evolution abilities/organs/parts of body. Watch following Ted Talk, might be interesting...



I will not comment on carbon radio dating, it's not sued in this case and it has been already explained.

Even you negate it, it seems to me that you are not sure how old is this world, nor how evolution works...