Is progression in the fossil record in the eye of the beholder
So we know that genes mutate from studies in biology. Evolution happens in all living species and this is not contestable. However I am wondering how strong the case is for the standard history of evolution. If we have a species that walks sometimes uprightly, then the next species does so more prounouncly, and so on (based on fossil evidence) it would seem that evolution is happening here IF standing uprightly contributes to survival. However, each species has many many features that contribute to survival so to prove progression you would have to know all the adaptive survival mechanism of each ring in the evolution to prove there is increase in survivability. So how much do we know about each species we have unearthed? Do we know enough to say for sure what had happened or is there some wishful thinking going on?
Comments (32)
All of this is likely to take years and involve many people. A fairly large body of information has been built up which enables paleontologists to occasionally see clear evidence of evolution. Why not more evidence? only a tiny portion of fossil-bearing rock has been, or can be investigated. Most of the fossil-bearing rock are too deeply buried under over-burden.
In fact, fossils do provide evidence for evolution, but the record is by no means complete. Many steps between species are missing.
Take archaeopteryx lithographica, the earliest bird to get the worm.
So the status of this "bird" if that's what it is, is not an open and shut case yet.
There isn't really a standard history, as it's being constantly updated. I think the only orthodoxy is that evolution occurs, but there's enormous range in the specifics. In the last decade or so, there have been discoveries of now-extinct hominids that branched off the line leading to h. sapiens, such as the denosovans and h. florensis. There's been the discovery that at least some of the genetic base of neanerthaal is found in h. sapiens DNA. There is still controversy around the 'out of Africa' theory. And so on.
Quoting Gregory
Often precious little. Denisovans (who original ancestor, Dennis, lived a long while ago) are known only from a very small number of fragments, the remainder is based on DNA analysis.
Quoting Gregory
h. sapiens survived, that's unarguable, although whether we survive 'the anthropocene' is still an open question, regrettably.
It is extremely important for all to know what Mayael believes or not.
Maybe not important as the belief of one particular and specific individual, but that there is or may be a formidable voting block by those who do not believe in the out of Africa theory, which in and by itself may affect voter turnout, and election results.
Beware. Know your electorate. Your platform must not make a promise based on the alleged truth of the "out of Africa" theory, lest you be doomed at the polls.
The fossils are real no doubt but the rest of paleontology is imagination. This isn't a flaw as much as it's a challenge worthy of true genius.
It is my understanding that the African origin of humans is well established. What do you know (about this) that I don't.
Aah. Our anti-science expert speaks again.
There are many very good, well-written books on evolution aimed at intelligent laymen. My favorites are by Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins is another good source.
The fossil record is probably the most important single source for information for geologists. The sequence of fossils has been used to help age rock deposits since the 1700s. Because it is so important, it has been studied extensively.
:lol: I'm not anti-science. I'm just the 10th man.
Perhaps you think a little too highly of yourself.
I think there's still some school of thought that h. sapiens might have evolved from earlier species in places other than Africa, specifically East Asia and or middle East. I don't think there's an argument that early hominid species developed anywhere but Africa. Hazy on details.
Does that give you satisfaction?
Not true. The 10th man's job is to simply disagree whether or not he has good reasons to do so.
.I just mentioned the Israeli government's strategy of always ensuring that there's someone who refuses to believe even if there's a mountain of evidential support to point out what the Delphic Oracle, 2500 years ago, warned us against: Surety brings ruin.
Being sure of the Delphic Oraculum's truth demands of one to be doubtful. Doubting it makes one to be sure.
This is a good paradox.
How is a life lived in the spirit of a paradox?
The paradox in the Delphic Oracle's words, "surety brings ruin" isn't as interesting or important as the honesty that it exudes.
But it has made you into being a liar. Where is the honesty and virtue in that?
All TPFians are liars! Chew on that, god must be atheist.
Whoa... where is the tenth man? You are supposed to be OPPOSING all the points, not agree with them.
The assumptions from which the above statement follows doesn't appeal to me! G'day!
Good! Thank you!
This is actually more complicated than that.
The complications arise from the earth being quite old at 5781 years (per the most accurate calculations, although there is some debate). The animals were created suddenly on the 6th day following creation followed by an immediate cessation of all creative activity on the 7th day.
Those remnants of day 6 would be deeply buried under almost 6000 years of dirt, leaves, and illegal dumpings. 1656 years after those events, a significant flood occurred, killing all but a few samples of each animal, and so each animal species had to start afresh. The mud, debris, and beer cans from that flood further buried the animals and now it's extremwly hard to locate them, although as evident from your example, with perseverance, they can find all sorts of things if they look long enough, including toothy German birds.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of the 10th man, although that does explain a lot about some of your ideas.
What's the role of the 10th man?
I'll go first. A certain event that transpired in the Middle East sometime in the '70s convinced the Israeli top brass that being in agreement threat of attack was zero in no way implies/implied that an attack wouldn't take place. In fact Israel was attacked despite the consensus among its leaders that it wouldn't be. That too given strong evidence that its enemies were not making any suspicious moves.
Thus,
1. There was absolutely no reason (no evidence) to suspect an attack.
2. Everyone that mattered were in total agreement that 1.
and yet,
3. There was an attack.
As you can see, either there was an intelligence failure or there was none and the leaders simply failed to recognize the danger.
Intelligence is not an exact science you know - too many variables as some might say. In other words, good intelligence is rare or perhaps even nonexistent.
So, where can we intervene to prevent such catastrophes?
At the level of decision-making bodies. We need to put a person in them who will act as the devil's advocate, who'll refuse to follow the herd and stubbornly refrain from giving his nod of approval to a decision that all but faer endorse.
I suppose the point of all this, in philosophical terms, is it's good to have a diehard skeptic on the team. An in-depth analysis of the 10th man idea will spread out into epistemology, logic, etc. I suppose.
In the end, it's about not being caught with your pants down ( :lol: I wish I'd been caught off guard like that. It would've been something to brag about. :rofl:) and not being lulled into a sense of false security.
[quote=Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus] Si vis pacem, para bellum.[/quote]
Thanks
Seems unlikely that we could dig up a complete continuum of past life.
We're also burning some of the remains in our cars.
In a sense, every species was/is subject to mutation/change over time, i.e. transitional, only once extinct did that end.
[sup]
• The Fossil Fallacy
• Transitional Tetrapod Fossil
• Evolution: What missing link?
• Transitional Forms: The Evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection
• Transitional forms
• List of transitional fossils
[/sup]