What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: burgerbuddy

No one was in charge of it (not all gods have a single role) it just happens Indo-European cosmology also has the universe creating itself, then the Gods.

originally posted by: wildespace
I accept the theory of evolution, and strongly advocate for it, but something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.

Well, it ain't "God."

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: wildespace
I accept the theory of evolution, and strongly advocate for it, but something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.

Well, it ain't "God."

And you know this...how??

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
And you know this...how??

Because it has nothing to do with good or evil. One particular animal form is not inherently better or "less sinful" than another. There is no moral reason for the changes.

Vagueness is a key part of some forms of storytelling. Don't make definitive statements that people can actually evaluate properly. 'Stick with (selective convenient) agnosticism' is the general rule here. Maybe this, maybe that, most likely this, most likely that. Then if your particular storyline gets criticized by your storytelling collegues, you can always just change your storyline a little bit and call it a new discovery, or progress (in science/knowledge).

Darwin started with bears evolving into whales. And he still used "monkeys" as a term for what nowadays are called "apes" (or apelike common ancestor). Yes, it was Darwin who claimed we evolved from monkeys, not young earth creationists who don't know what the proponents of evolutionary philosophies nowadays turned it into and how their programming is triggered by words such as "monkeys" (their intellectual superiority complex for example, their pride and arrogance). Note: before Darwin it was the Hindu Brahmin that taught religious philosophies about humans coming from monkeys. Some of the Pagan Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Anaximander, etc., some of whom also involved with the origin of the Trinity, taught that humans came from fish, which essentially is the same as the evolutionary philosophies of today, except it skips everything in between. Of course, as soon as it gets too obvious to the masses that bears didn't evolve into whales, you just change it up a little and go with multiple possible options (whales evolving from a hippo, or a hyena-like animal, etc.), or keep it even more vague and put everything on a "sideline" as depicted in the picture in the OP and as quoted from the scientist who did the research work on Rodhocetus and also comments on Ambulocetus:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

Am I seeing flippers drawn on the picture for Rodhocetus in the OP (see 5:55 in the video above)? The animal is certainly depicted as swimming with them.

Vagueness and uncertainty rules supreme in some circles. Cause it's useful for obscuration, spin, selling or marketing speculations and myths as science and for religious propaganda with an agenda while disassociating from religion and falling in love with the phrase "a lack of belief in..." even when one adheres to or falls for ancient Pagan religious(ly motivated) philosophies, modified to make them more appealing and sound more convincing.

originally posted by: CharlesT
I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.

Right. Prokaryotes don't leave fossils. As far as the genetic analysis of evolution goes, there's an interesting period at the "trunk" of the tree where gene sequences were moving laterally between branches. I've heard that used as an argument for design, but these swaps were occurring long, LONG before anything like plants and animals emerged. I think it's more likely that something like the ancestor of modern viruses and reverse transcriptase is the culprit.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: wildespace

I've never seen a graphic depicting direct species to species evolution.

1) In most if not all cases we don't actually know all of the species

2) Every single species is transitional

3) A lot of times these depictions are representative of entire genus' or family's because we only have a few fossilized examples of what we're dealing with.

Keep in mind that fossilization is quite rare, it would be insane to have examples of every single species and especially weird if we had enough examples to see a species gradually change into another. Speciation has been observed in the real world in both the lab and the wild but typically it takes a long time especially if the organism is quite complex and/or breeds slowly but the fossil record is a bit harder. I like to think of it like a comic book, we can study each panel and figure out in what order they go. Scientists have to be very careful about it which is why it takes so long for a consensus to be reached.

Thank you for probably the only reply here that actually sticks with the subject and tries to address it.

I wonder if some of the prehistoric species that are represented as branches descending from a common ancestor were actually direct line of evolution. For example, Ambulocetus evolving directly from Pakicetus.

a reply to: whereislogic

we aren't talking about Darwinism, we are talking about evolution. Darwinism is a precursor, modern evolutionary synthesis is the up to date model. Put your strawman out to pasture.

a reply to: TzarChasm
The historical facts I mentioned and the things I discussed regarding evolutionary philosophies including those about whales and Rodhocetus and the mythological "whales [that] had feet and actually walked on land" quoting Dr. Annalisa Berta (Evolutionary Biology, Ph.D., Department of Biology, San Diego) from the video is all relevant to the OP. Which uses a picture that includes Rodhocetus. If you want to respond to my comment in any fashion that resembles a willingness to converse rather than paint and discredit you could answer my question. Of course from past 'conversations' I've learned that this is not your intention.
This was my question:

Am I seeing flippers drawn on the picture for Rodhocetus in the OP (see 5:55 in the video above)? The animal is certainly depicted as swimming with them.

It's useful for anyone who wants to know the truth of the matter, a truth seeker, to respond to the question with the information regarding Rodhocetus, in particular what's mentioned concerning the supposed flippers in the video at the time I mentioned in mind. Not blatantly ignoring it. Well, unless obscuration of the facts and distracting from my question or that subject is your main goal here, but that would not be useful for truthseekers or those who want to 'deny ignorance' as the slogan of this website goes.

I recommend not staying at the surface of the pond using the same superficial arguments that a chatbot could generate just as well. I didn't even mention the triggerword "Darwinism". Only something about what Darwin taught was mentioned as a sidenote related to an earlier point about evolutionary philosophies. Red herrings are really "nothing new under the sun" (Eccl.1:9) here.

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14)

I don't think there's much rational discussion one can have about that subject though, they lost me at the concept of 'walking whales'. Sounds like mermaids a.k.a. aquatic apes all over again. Even though the 'walking whales'-storyline precedes that one chronologically. But I first heard the mermaid storyline (speculation presented under the label "science", even using the fancy term "hypothesis" with the implication and/or effect of creating the impression it has something to do with science or is somehow scientific):

Of course, most people don't fall for the mermaid one yet blissfully look the other way when evolutionary biologists talk about the concept of 'walking whales'. As if a certain group of people not taking one of the 2 stories seriously negates the far-fetched nature of the other one being promoted and marketed by those on board their particular decorated bandwagon in this parade.

originally posted by: wildespace
...something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.

Veiled in mystery and open ends to speculation (maybe this, maybe that, most like this, most likely that), here's another one of those mystery trees:

originally posted by: wildespace
...something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.

They have no fossil to show. They'd have to draw something from their imagination if they want to have something there (of course, that won't stop them from presenting those drawings in evolutionary trees as well; or make up a generic family name, they've been making up new family names for decades to fill in at such spots, they even have a "chimpanzee–human last common ancestor", or "CHLCA", yep, that's the official name for this mythological animal for which they are unwilling to make a definitive designation which fossil it is represented by, vagueness still rules supreme allowing for multiple storylines to be marketed consecutively or concurrently). Checkout the contradictory nature of presenting the evidence by the evolutionary philosophers below in relation to the issue described by wildespace above.

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

28. Science and Creationism​—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” 1999, p.14.

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

*: Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate. See pages 22 to 29 of the brochure, The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

29. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000, pp. 49, 85.

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.
[Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?]

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34*

[whereislogic: synonyms for "definite": truthful/factual/conclusive]
*: Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35*

[whereislogic: compare the bolded part with the earlier statements made by the NAS brochure about the evidence that is about as mythological as the stories and mythological animals it's supposed to be evidence of, there's more below to compare with]
*: Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​—the 95 frames of the movie—​showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37
[[If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?]

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?*

*: See, for example, the box “What About Human Evolution?”

[Sources 34-37]

originally posted by: wildespace
I've never seen a graphic depicting direct species to species evolution. Instead, we only have the "end points" of the branches. Am I missing something here? Have we ever discovered fossils of species that was the common ancestor of other known fossil species?

Keep in mind though regarding everything I've said, that they use those drawings as well (what you describe as "direct species to species evolution"), using actual fossils in support. But it's arguably less popular than the vaguer graphics (you'll find them more among the older drawings), especially when we're talking specifics for things like human evolution. Or try to figure out which is the first organism that bats evolved from that isn't a bat (according to some resemblence of an official storyline, not that there is one specific one). I've already discovered conflicting claims made throughout the decades. Here's one of the problems why there are so many different trees and schematics going around that don't all match 100% (take note of the terminology "gene tree discordance", that's talking about what I just described regarding the trees based on fossils but in that case regarding trees based on genetics, which also don't match well with the trees that were first drawn 'based' on the fossil record, well claimed to be based on that, but ignoring the actual evidence from the fossil record, but I've been through that already):

Anyway, the purpose of quoting that part of the OP was to draw attention to the picture used in the OP in relation to the way of talking by the NAS brochure and focussing on one keyword:

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

28. Science and Creationism​—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” 1999, p.14.

When I see the use of the word "intermediate" I understand that you'll need 2 different kind of animals on either side of the picture in the OP and a direct line between them. Then you have something that is intermediate between 2 other things. Otherwise your presentation does not match the language used by the others on the same bandwagon in this situation (and the overarching evolutionary storylines concerning intermediates, whether you use that exact word or not). Check out Rodhocetus for example in the picture, what does the picture really tell us about what it evolved from? Nothing (follow the line, sidelines don't count)? And what organism evolved from Rodhocetus? Nothing again? Everything on a sideline, what does that tell us about the supposed evidence for the lines themselves? What the NAS brochure describes as "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent"? Where are these "intermediate forms" in the picture? How is the picture useful to us at all in determining whether or not there were intermediate forms between all these organisms which is what's supposed to be the case according to the overarching storyline the picture is based on? Where is the evidence for the lines? If you're going to put everything on sidelines, why even talk about "intermediate forms" anyway (even if it's another source on another occasion, you might want to get your story straight first if you're telling the same overarching storyline, regardless of which variation or subplot)?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

Among the best of all members posting here.
Patiently detailed everytime.

Too bad the post doesn't address the question in the OP and distracts from it. Even the drawings linked to up till that point in the thread (when the comment above was made) show the exact same issue the OP was describing and asking questions about. No drawings of intermediates, just the lines and in the case of the 2nd link by TzarChasm, an occasional generic family name (sporadically thrown in), no depiction of these animals. And again, everything is on an endpoint on a sideline, no direct lines between the organisms depicted with the exception of the famous drawing of mythological apemen turning into humans, without any specific names, but that shows mythological "intermediate forms" (still no "common ancestor" drawn in there though, only an unreadable generic family name, because the drawing is so small). I could not find anything else in that picture (being depicted, not just a name) that can be appropiately described as "intermediate" or a common ancestor to something else that is depicted* as it is depicted in that drawing.

*: When I'm talking about "depicted" there I'm talking about an actual drawing of the animal, not just a name in a line being depicted (the generic family names are sometimes inside the lines of supposed descent in that drawing)

Allthough I think I've just ended up repeating what wildespace already responded with in slightly different wording. Should have been obvious though before sharing those links (counting the first unspecific link that from a quick glance had very similar drawings in the results). Even if after that links are shared with drawings that use direct lines between the depicted animals rather than putting everything on the endpoints of sidelines, one might ask the question why first such a drawing was linked as if one didn't even register or understand what issue the OP was describing? Was it really that hard to get that those kind of drawings wouldn't cut it as a response to the OP? Just wondering out loud as to the motivation of sharing such links to such drawings that are not that different from the example already used in the OP (or the first link where one just sort of has to find a different style drawing themselves).

This video addresses the subject in the OP (as well as this comment of mine months ago in another thread):

Oh how quickly the copy pasted JW propaganda floods this thread, no matter how irrelevant and off topic.

As far as I understand it, specialization occurs when one group of organisms were isolated from each (either geographically, or by occupying divergent ecological niches) for such a long time that they can no longer mate and produce off-spring.

So cats and bears once had a common ancestor, but they can longer mate nowadays, so they are different species.
And so it goes backwards.

And yeah, the fossil record usually exists (no modern cats or bears in the strata where the common ancestor is found).

www.iflscience.com...

Are you asking for any any animals that show characteristics of a transition?

Fossilization is a rare thing.

That's the whole problem is the simple fact we have never witnessed any organism turn into another organism.never once did we see a jellyfish turn into a regular fish or a lobster to a crab.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
That's the whole problem is the simple fact we have never witnessed any organism turn into another organism.never once did we see a jellyfish turn into a regular fish or a lobster to a crab.

Yeah, because that would falsify evolution. Evolution predicts that we should be able to observe small changes, because that's exactly what evolution is. Small changes that add up over time. The level of change you are talking about would take hundreds of thousands to millions of small changes accumulating. New species aren't just born over night. If they were, it would prove evolution wrong. Evolution specifically predicts that we won't be able to witness such changes because they take too long, so it has no bearing on the validity of evolution whatsoever. Scientists don't just watch things. They study them and make observations of evidence. The fossil record verifies that.

a reply to: Barcs

But in the amount of time we have been observing we should have seen a complete change in the fossil record which we do not see. Everything is the exact same look at sharks turtles whales haven't changed in more than 100 million years or more that is enough time to observe evolutionary changes. That have simply not occured.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen grapes turn into wine.

I've also never seen a pastor turn water into wine (although in Cape Town we might prefer it the over way round soon).

It's a kind of magic!

As far as the horse, for example goes, it doesn't seem like magic, but a clear progression.
en.wikipedia.org...

Not to knock any theory or belief, but "Were you there?" applies to everyone.
Were you there when your God created everything?
But until this stage the theory of evolution (or natural selection) has the most evidence backing it.

And from the fossil record, there's no way all these species could have lived on Earth at once.
They would have lived on top of each other.
(Have you ever slept under a Brontosaurus? - I won't speak out of the bedroom, but it doesn't do much for the continued survival of any species.)
And apparently we're only likely to find all the species of dinosaur fossils by 2050, or something.

a reply to: Themaskedbeast

Perhaps you need to read up on what evolution is We are not talking catastrophic change (what you are describing), we are talking gradual change. We have seem these changes (species of moths, mice which have adapted to neighbourhoods in NYC, and of course antibiotic resistant bacterium).

Every generation of a species (that sexually reproduces) is a mutant, from the last.