34 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

Lrak, on 27 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

So does that mean that there is a fossil for every single stage of evolution for any given species?

No.  For some lines, like horses, elephants, bears and deer, we have a pretty good record with several fossils from each of the intermediate species.  For others, especially older ones like dinosaurs, we are doing good just to have one fossil from each species.  Undoubtedly, there are many species for which we have no fossils at all.  In time, more fossils will be discovered and the gaps filled in.

For soft-bodied species, fossils are rare because the soft body parts don't fossilize very well.

Any biological family is a branching family tree.  We often have one or two fossils on one branch and another from a different branch and some more from still another branch.  We then have to figure out what is ancestral to what and what is just a biological dead end.

Quote

From the first vertebrate to a dinosaur, or humans?

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, but my guess is that there are still some gaps.  The large characteristics allow most of the family tree to be discerned, but the small ones provide the details on xactly who is related to who and how.

It helps to think of species like individuals on a family tree.  A grandchild species has a parent species between itself and its grandparent.  Two cousins are on different branches and are not direct descendents of each other, etc.

Quote

I hope my understanding of evolution is correct.

It's that an organism changes to suit the environment it's in to become another organism better suited to that environment, or something like that?

So far, so good.  Evolution is about what works or doesn't in a given environment.  As long as something can stay alive long enough to have grandchildren, it is a success, no matter how good or poorly its system functions.

In practice, only a slight edge is needed.  If a characteristic allows its owners to have 1% more descendents than those that lack the characteristic, it will eventually spread through the entire population.  Evoltuion is more about populations that individuals.  It's survival of the fittest population, not the fittest indiviual.
Doug

[Seeker79]

Doug1o29, on 27 July 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

No.  For some lines, like horses, elephants, bears and deer, we have a pretty good record with several fossils from each of the intermediate species.  For others, especially older ones like dinosaurs, we are doing good just to have one fossil from each species.  Undoubtedly, there are many species for which we have no fossils at all.  In time, more fossils will be discovered and the gaps filled in.

For soft-bodied species, fossils are rare because the soft body parts don't fossilize very well.

Any biological family is a branching family tree.  We often have one or two fossils on one branch and another from a different branch and some more from still another branch.  We then have to figure out what is ancestral to what and what is just a biological dead end.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, but my guess is that there are still some gaps.  The large characteristics allow most of the family tree to be discerned, but the small ones provide the details on xactly who is related to who and how.

It helps to think of species like individuals on a family tree.  A grandchild species has a parent species between itself and its grandparent.  Two cousins are on different branches and are not direct descendents of each other, etc.

So far, so good.  Evolution is about what works or doesn't in a given environment.  As long as something can stay alive long enough to have grandchildren, it is a success, no matter how good or poorly its system functions.

In practice, only a slight edge is needed.  If a characteristic allows its owners to have 1% more descendents than those that lack the characteristic, it will eventually spread through the entire population.  Evoltuion is more about populations that individuals.  It's survival of the fittest population, not the fittest indiviual.
Doug

It's not even about survival it's about passing on genes. The peacock is a good example. There are many many strange looking things in nature that have nothing to do with fitness only attracting more mates. These things even attract more predictors it's just that the mateing benefits outweighs the survival benefits.

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

[Imaginarynumber1]

The Cambrian explosion was just that because before that time, there were barely any species that would fossilize. It was during the Cambrian explosion (which is a record of million of years, mind you) that most chitinous animals appeared, which were more prone to fossilization than most of what was alive before that. Bacteria, amoebae, worms and such.
The exact cause will probably never be know and is probably a combination of factors involving ecological, environmental, and developmental changes.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Seeker79, on 27 July 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

This is an evolutionary concept that I wish more people would understand. Flora and Fauna do not ever stop evolving.

[Arbenol68]

There are several misconceptions about the Cambrian explosion. One is that it all happened in an instant. Geologically speaking, maybe. But in reality it happened over a period up to 10million years. Fast but not instantaneous. Another is that these are the first animals and plants found in the record. Strictly speaking this is true, because during this period was first seen life that had 'hard' body parts that could fossilise. Prior to this only traces of life are left behind. Chemical markers and burrows for example.

If you're genuinely interested, "Darwin's Lost World" by Martin Brasier is a decent read.

[Emma_Acid]

Lrak, on 27 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

So does that mean that there is a fossil for every single stage of evolution for any given species?

From the first vertebrate to a dinosaur, or humans?

I hope my understanding of evolution is correct.

It's that an organism changes to suit the environment it's in to become another organism better suited to that environment, or something like that?

There is no such thing as the "first" of a species. And no, your understanding of evolution is pretty woeful.

These sorts of posts always infuriate me. As if the poster thinks they've thought of something thats never occurred to scientists and in one fell swoop disproven all of evolutionary theory.

[Emma_Acid]

Seeker79, on 27 July 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

It's not even about survival it's about passing on genes. The peacock is a good example. There are many many strange looking things in nature that have nothing to do with fitness only attracting more mates. These things even attract more predictors it's just that the mateing benefits outweighs the survival benefits.

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

Thats one way of looking at it. Another is that *every* fossil is transitional (unless its the last of a species before extinction.

[Seeker79]

Emma_Acid, on 28 July 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Thats one way of looking at it. Another is that *every* fossil is transitional (unless its the last of a species before extinction.

That's much simpilar actually I prefer that one.

Edited by Seeker79, 28 July 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[Mnemonix]

Emma_Acid, on 28 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

There is no such thing as the "first" of a species. And no, your understanding of evolution is pretty woeful.

These sorts of posts always infuriate me. As if the poster thinks they've thought of something thats never occurred to scientists and in one fell swoop disproven all of evolutionary theory.

I'm not trying to disprove anything =)

So please don't get infuriated over something I'm not doing

I'm not saying I've thought of something that's never occurred to scientists or disprove evolution.

I'm just looking for answers =)

Edited by Lrak, 28 July 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Darkwind]

HerNibs, on 27 July 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Nibs

Does this poster come in english?  I know a kid who would love this, poster.

People don't seem to understand a fossil is a rear event. Most things don't turn into fossils, they are eaten, scattered and decay. Once in a great while something gets covered or leaves a print which makes a fossil. I have collected fossils all my life. (I lost most of my collection in a move.)  I wish I could go out and find a fossil in every hole I dig, but that doesn't happen, so the evidence has some gaps in it and it is not a seamless line. IMO there is enough evidence to show living things evolve and change through generations.

[HerNibs]

Darkwind, on 28 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Does this poster come in english?  I know a kid who would love this, poster.

People don't seem to understand a fossil is a rear event. Most things don't turn into fossils, they are eaten, scattered and decay. Once in a great while something gets covered or leaves a print which makes a fossil. I have collected fossils all my life. (I lost most of my collection in a move.)  I wish I could go out and find a fossil in every hole I dig, but that doesn't happen, so the evidence has some gaps in it and it is not a seamless line. IMO there is enough evidence to show living things evolve and change through generations.

I haven't seen it in english but honestly, I haven't looked.    I'll see if I come across it and will let you know right away.

Nibs

[Beckys_Mom]

Darkwind, on 28 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Does this poster come in english?  I know a kid who would love this, poster.

Try this Darkwind..from Amazon ..Darwins Evolution Tree Of Life poster - > http://www.amazon.co...6/dp/B003XRAI90

Another that I think would be interesting for kids is this -> http://www.evogeneao...oster-small.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 30 July 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Lrak, on 27 July 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

The ant colony needs a queen to reproduce, and the queen needs the workers to gather food. One cannot survive without the other. So how did the queen evolve without the workers, or the workers without the queen?

Does cause always come before effect?

Suppose I touch a hot radiator and burn my hand. Was the radiator hot because someone had turned it on? or did burning my hand bring into being a past where someone turned it on?

http://en.wikipedia....aser_experiment

Does the search for a past bring one into being?
Can the past be changed?

Suppose you do a Quantum Eraser Experiment on yourself where you amnesia away all knowledge and all information relating to evolution. Did we still evolve from apes?

The only truth is your mind.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 30 July 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Sensible Logic]

Mr Right Wing, on 30 July 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Does cause always come before effect?

Suppose I touch a hot radiator and burn my hand. Was the radiator hot because someone had turned it on? or did burning my hand bring into being a past where someone turned it on?

http://en.wikipedia....aser_experiment

Does the search for a past bring one into being?
Can the past be changed?

Suppose you do a Quantum Eraser Experiment on yourself where you amnesia away all knowledge and all information relating to evolution. Did we still evolve from apes?

The only truth is your mind.

As your hand approaches the radiator you feel the heat emanating from it so yes it was turned on by someone prior to your hand burning.

Since we never evolved from apes the answer to the last part is no.

[Mr Right Wing]

Sensible Logic, on 30 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

As your hand approaches the radiator you feel the heat emanating from it so yes it was turned on by someone prior to your hand burning.

Since we never evolved from apes the answer to the last part is no.

If you want to be precise the point is when information about the raidator being hot is received.

At that point was the past created or was the radiator already hot because someone switched it on?

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 30 July 2012 - 06:36 PM.