I have a question about evolution

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

alphamale1989

I think we do have in between species. There  is us humans, and then inbetween would be gorila's, and the other would be some other land thing that walks on four legs or something.

[QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

alexh_99

I think we do have in between species. There  is us humans, and then inbetween would be gorila's, and the other would be some other land thing that walks on four legs or something.

no no no.....NOOO the human and the gorilla aren't related. (well they are related but not that way...that's a common misconception humans didn't evolve from apes) To answer the TC's question humans have an appendix and a tailbone just to give you an idea of what we've evolved from (humans having tails and some organ no one knows the purpose for)

ll evolution is smal small mutations that better help a species to survive and thrive.. so when they breed more smal small changes are made.. its soo small that we cannot see it really.. it tames millions of years for a noticable change to occur

i highly suggest you watch this video

the great carl sagan explains the answer to your question very well IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBBh-o_9XWE

Ok, here is an illistration:

Species A-----------------Species B----------------------Species C

If evolution is such a gradual process shouldn't we actually see more species inbetween A and B, or B and C.

There are many transitional fossils. Heck, human evolution is actually well documented. Look at the changes in skull shape over thousands of years.

The reason we don't have a complete picture is because of the relatively few fossils that are actually preserved, most are destroyed over time. Imagine a film with 1 frame every 5 seconds. You can see the general progression of the film, but you won't see the entire story.

Pretty much every animal alive today is a "transitional" form. Many organs in the human body have slightly different functions from their counterparts found in animals, and some structures still exist despite the fact that the current animal does not use them (the hind legs of whales/snakes for example).

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

alphamale1989

1. Evolution doesn't occur uniformly over time. Species evolve they find their niche and stay that way as long as the environment stays static. This is called "punctuated equilibrium" and it explains (in addition to the nature of fossilization) why many species remain the same for long periods of time.

2. Every species today is the end result of evolution. The only way to see "inbetween" species is to look into common ancestry.

[QUOTE="alexh_99"][QUOTE="alphamale1989"]

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

WINDWAKER1

I think we do have in between species. There  is us humans, and then inbetween would be gorila's, and the other would be some other land thing that walks on four legs or something.

no no no.....NOOO the human and the gorilla aren't related. (well they are related but not that way...that's a common misconception humans didn't evolve from apes) To answer the TC's question humans have an appendix and a tailbone just to give you an idea of what we've evolved from (humans having tails and some organ no one knows the purpose for)

Actually, humans did evolve from apes. What is the misconception? Tailbones and goosebumbs are vestigial traits evolved from primates.

Proof of evoluion from a previous evolution thread by CptJSparrow:

Observed instances of speciation.
Neanderthal genome sequencing
Humans and Neanderthals shared Earth
Transitional fossil FAQ
Transitional fossils of hominid skulls
The Origin of Whales
List of transitional fossils
Hundreds of human genes still evolving
Human and ape chromosomes
Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution
Ken Miller on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Early Man Couldn't "Stomach" Milk
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Miller-Urey Experiment
The Flagellum Unspun
NASA: Nitrogen, lightning key to early life on Earth
NASA: Scientists Propose New Theory of Early Life on Earth
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Purpose of Appendix Believed Found
Germs Get 'Badder' in Space
Common Ancestor of All Apes Walked Upright
Something Fishy About Human Fingers
Neanderthals Had Language Gene Identical to Ours
Early Humans used Makeup, Ate Seafood
Chimps as Irrationally Possessive as Humans
Earth's Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere Older Than Thought
Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthals
Early Humans Could Walk, Not Run
'Baby Talk' Universally Understood
Men With 'Caveman' Faces More Attractive to Women
Skull Suggests Two Early Human Species Existed at the Same Time
Intelligent Design on Trial
Are Mutations Harmful?
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Missing Link Between Fish and Land Animals
Precambrian Fossils
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event
Oldest Homo Sapiens Found, Experts Say
Neanderthals Not our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?
Neanderthals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Suggests
Did Neanderthals Lack Smarts to Survive?
Java Skull Raises Questions about Human Origins
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago
1.8 Million Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found
When Did "Modern Behavior" in Humans Arise?
Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Co-Existed
Evolution of the Horse
BBC: Evolution of Man
Darwin's Finches Evolving Fast
Velociraptor Had Feathers
Speciation
Understanding Evolution
Human Evolution - Skeletal Details
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees, and Rhesus Monkeys
Uranium-Lead Dating
First Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Second Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Third Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Fourth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Fifth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Sixth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Seventh Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Eighth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Ninth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Tenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Eleventh Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
The Twelfth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
The Thirteenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab
Discovery of UK's Newest Plant Species
Self-Replicating Molecules Reported by MIT

There are many links in the list for transitional fossils, look for them.

Every species is technically a transition, because essentially it will turn into something else many generations from now (unless it goes extince completely).

As for older transitional fossils, they're everywhere.  Just type in "Transitional Fossils" in wiki and you'll be shown a list of what scientists believe to be transitional species (even though every fossil is technically a transitional fossil).

Evolution is fake because it can't explain the origin of life and if you guys think evolution is right then you must also accept "spontaneous generation" which has already been disproven.nVidiaGaMer

Wow man got strawman argument?

Anyway here's a video on abiogenesis.

Ok, here is an illistration:

Species A-----------------Species B----------------------Species C

If evolution is such a gradual process shouldn't we actually see more species inbetween A and B, or B and C.

alphamale1989

The answer if yes and no. If the process is carefully documented, then technically we should see the gradual change in traits from one species to another. However, the fossil record if far from complete, which means we only get freeze frames of steps along the way.

Also, DNA doesn't always work like that. Say a fruit fly has a gene that is vital to growing wings. If that gene is disabled by a mutation, then the fly can no longer grow wings, and that fly will be wingless, rather than a gradual change of large wings that reduce in size until they disappear over time.

[QUOTE="WINDWAKER1"][QUOTE="alexh_99"]

 

I think we do have in between species. There  is us humans, and then inbetween would be gorila's, and the other would be some other land thing that walks on four legs or something.

tccavey2

no no no.....NOOO the human and the gorilla aren't related. (well they are related but not that way...that's a common misconception humans didn't evolve from apes) To answer the TC's question humans have an appendix and a tailbone just to give you an idea of what we've evolved from (humans having tails and some organ no one knows the purpose for)

Actually, humans did evolve from apes. What is the misconception? Tailbones and goosebumbs are vestigial traits evolved from primates.

Evolution is fake because it can't explain the origin of life and if you guys think evolution is right then you must also accept "spontaneous generation" which has already been disproven.nVidiaGaMer

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

alphamale1989

The fossil record is quite incomplete. In order for an organism to be fossilized the correct conditions and specific circumstances must be in place.

Often times variation exists within a species (think of body size and height in humans for example). Natural selection plays upon these traits with each successive generation to favor individuals who are better suited to their environment. Since this is a gradual process, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between whether the differences between two fossils simply is a result of variation within that population, or if there is enough of a difference to classify the two as separate species.

Additionally, situations can occur (punctuated equilibrium model) where there is a large period of stasis (very little change) followed by rapid change usually triggered by some kind of environmental cue (like a widespread natural disaster or extinction). In this case, most of the species can be wiped out leaving very few to survive (thus very few remaining individuals to leave fossils)

I think we do have in between species. There  is us humans, and then inbetween would be gorila's, and the other would be some other land thing that walks on four legs or something.

alexh_99

Humans did not evolve from gorillas. Humans and gorillas (along with Chimpanzees and Bonobos if I remember correctly) are Great Apes and share a common ancestor. Our lineages evolved ALONGSIDE one another from that last common ancestor, and not from one another.

Evolution is fake because it can't explain the origin of life and if you guys think evolution is right then you must also accept "spontaneous generation" which has already been disproven.nVidiaGaMer

Evolution is change over time, it does not explain the origin of life.

So if spieces are constaitly evolving into new spieces over long periods of time then I have a few (similar) questions:

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

I'm sure you guys have an answer to this, we don't have to make this another one of those religous debate threads, I just want to know.

alphamale1989

1.  We find a few, but there are so few intact fossils that they are cautious to make any true judgment.  Look at our closest (by living date) ancestor, the Neanderthal, we still know very little, have a terrible time extracting DNA from 40,000 old samples, and have only a few full bodies.

2. Slow-motion.  Everything is happening way to slowly.  The only real example is selective evolution which is obvious in dogs.  You can make your own dog breed to suit your tastes in less than 25 years. 

1. How come most of the fossil record is either one spieces or another, why don't we see nearly as many "transition" fossils.

2. The same goes for today, why don't we see very many spieces today that are inbetween spieces?

alphamale1989

Neither of those questions really makes much sense as far as evolution, because there is no such thing as "inbetween species".  If animal A evolves into animal B, which then evolves into modern animal C, animal B was still a species unto itself; it wasn't just some sort of cosmic scratch pad on which God showed his work to get to the end result of animal C.

Ok, here is an illistration:

Species A-----------------Species B----------------------Species C

If evolution is such a gradual process shouldn't we actually see more species inbetween A and B, or B and C.

alphamale1989

This is the age old argument of finding two more gaps once a single gap is filled in, then finding four more gaps once those are filled in, and so on.

The fossilization process requires very precise conditions, which is why we don't see fossils of every animal that has ever lived.  Nonetheless, the so-called tree of life is very, very filled in by now, such that the exact evolutionary history of many animals is now very well understood.  There are thousands and thousands of fossils that have been found showing a transition from one form to the next, including the oft-desired transitions between water and land and between non-winged and winged.  The fossil record is so solid at this point that the only people arguing that it still has major gaps are those who haven't seen its full scope.  Take the list of fossils for the ancestors of Homo sapiens, for example.