Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.

Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.

What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.

So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.

The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).

If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8

Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.

Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

060406.tiktaalik-1.jpg

Ok, moving on.

So now we have these land critters who like the water.

Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?

These guys arent too much different, morphologically.

The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.

so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.

http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid

And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.

And we start finding fossils like these.lithographica_1044_990x742.jpg

Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.

http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

And, we go on and on.

In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).

And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...

It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.

http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040

And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.

Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

398-004-411B88E5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, i like how people vote my post 1 star, and yet they dont actually comment. If you guys have a problem with the concept, then say it. I'm right here. Ready to drop research for any and all nay sayers. You dont need to hide from me.

And for anyone else, im a nice guy, i dont bite, and im not necessarily here to debate. Just providing information. So, dont be afraid to comment, even if u just want to say hello.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont like evolution.... no one wants to be the offspring of a retarded monkey that somehow got mutated :dry:

Haha. Well...If you look at DNA based organisms, even humans, yes i know its hard to believe humans have DNA :P, but even humans mutate. Our DNA, sequences proteins and proteins build our morphology. So if DNA mutates, then the proteins it sequences, change, then we subsequently, physically change.

And we have evolved from the most and to the most, intellectually superior animals on the planet, so i personally am proud of that lol. Indeed, i am very proud to be a human, no matter what our origins.

And if anything, understanding our origins makes it an even greater history. The past that we have overcome is absolutely amazing, and nobody should be ashamed of how far we've come, nor the amazing feats we have surpassed, because no other living thing we know of, has come as far as we have. in certain aspects*

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These phylogentic trees have been built upon similarity and does not actually show progression from ape - > to human.

Similarity does not imply common ancestry,things are and necessarily must be either more similar or less similar,thus the same tree you made can still be made if we were indeed created.

Phylogentic trees regarding fossils however can show evolution from ape to human due to age of the fossils tied with polymorphism ,however in terms of human evolution the evidence is very weak as many evolutionists admit.

ERVs are shown to be functional and perhaps non-random,thus weakening using that in summation or phylogentic trees.

There isn't really much left after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silurian, I have a question, and I am not knowledgable in the field of science. These are just some thoughts:

From my understanding, we have come so far (so far that I cannot fathom) not only biologically but socially/spiritually. Sure some can point to similarities in appendages from multiple species and so on, but how does mainstream science or human evolutionists explain what I think is the utter speed of our evolution. Once we were on par with apes but a million years later, if it was not for wars and bad resource and intellectual management, we could have been far into space and out of sight from planet earth. Our level of being just seems to be for too complex and superior to other organisms on this planet (or maybe this whole universe but to the extant we still dont know) for human evolution to explain. We are too advanced. i dunno

How can this be explained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These phylogentic trees have been built upon similarity and does not actually show progression from ape - > to human.

Similarity does not imply common ancestry,things are and necessarily must be either more similar or less similar,thus the same tree you made can still be made if we were indeed created.

Phylogentic trees regarding fossils however can show evolution from ape to human due to age of the fossils tied with polymorphism ,however in terms of human evolution the evidence is very weak as many evolutionists admit.

ERVs are shown to be functional and perhaps non-random,thus weakening using that in summation or phylogentic trees.

There isn't really much left after that.

I like your avatar a lot. Its quite bumptious in the positive sense, the person in it leaning to one side just as if he scattered any contradictory notion with ease, caring only to trouble himself with matters much more worthwhile.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a well documented fact. Whether or not it happened by way of Natural Selection is open to debate.

It might be a well documented fact but we can't seriously believe that our ancesters were apes and chimpanzees. The fact that the genetic coding of many species resemble each other can be a sort of a miracle of ALLAHÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. Can you imagine the amount of time it would take for mapping of the genetics of each indiviual species. We might have a spoon full of DNA in us but its mapping takes years. The genetic mapping of us humans(Homo Sapiens) has not been completed yet. The process is still underway.

If you tell me that monkeys were humans before, that I will believe but not otherwise.

Edited by Your sister in faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2012 at 6:17 AM, Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz said:

These phylogentic trees have been built upon similarity and does not actually show progression from ape - > to human.

Similarity does not imply common ancestry,things are and necessarily must be either more similar or less similar,thus the same tree you made can still be made if we were indeed created.

Phylogentic trees regarding fossils however can show evolution from ape to human due to age of the fossils tied with polymorphism ,however in terms of human evolution the evidence is very weak as many evolutionists admit.

ERVs are shown to be functional and perhaps non-random,thus weakening using that in summation or phylogentic trees.

There isn't really much left after that.

Its been 5 years, but just noticed this post.

"ERVs are shown to be functional and perhaps non-random". 

To this, i would just ask what other explanation would their be for their synchronization with other phylogenetic trees. 

There really is no other explanation.

Not sure if Ali Herz roams these parts anymore...I wonder where he stands on the topic in recent days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2012 at 1:38 PM, moooose said:

Silurian, I have a question, and I am not knowledgable in the field of science. These are just some thoughts:

From my understanding, we have come so far (so far that I cannot fathom) not only biologically but socially/spiritually. Sure some can point to similarities in appendages from multiple species and so on, but how does mainstream science or human evolutionists explain what I think is the utter speed of our evolution. Once we were on par with apes but a million years later, if it was not for wars and bad resource and intellectual management, we could have been far into space and out of sight from planet earth. Our level of being just seems to be for too complex and superior to other organisms on this planet (or maybe this whole universe but to the extant we still dont know) for human evolution to explain. We are too advanced. i dunno

How can this be explained?

I doubt this guy is around anymore either.  This is a post that is basically asking, at what rate can organisms evolve? I am not informed enough to know how many genetic changes we underwent in the past 1 million years, and how that number of changes compares to the changes in other species over the past 1 million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2011 at 0:10 PM, Reshad said:

i dont like evolution.... no one wants to be the offspring of a retarded monkey that somehow got mutated :dry:

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2012 at 1:03 PM, Sapphire said:

I said this before and saying it again. I aint a chimp. :D

 

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2012 at 4:42 AM, Sapphire said:

It might be a well documented fact but we can't seriously believe that our ancesters were apes and chimpanzees. The fact that the genetic coding of many species resemble each other can be a sort of a miracle of ALLAHÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. Can you imagine the amount of time it would take for mapping of the genetics of each indiviual species. We might have a spoon full of DNA in us but its mapping takes years. The genetic mapping of us humans(Homo Sapiens) has not been completed yet. The process is still underway.

If you tell me that monkeys were humans before, that I will believe but not otherwise.

Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans 23 pairs. So no matches there.

Also, we have no Y chromosome from Neanderthals as analysis shows four mutations that led to its extinction in the human line.

Personally, l am glad l am descended from "black mud" and "clay"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey brother, sorry if it causes trouble, can we confirm again that there is no link or actual evidence from fossils and footprints that links "hominids" to humans?

@313 Seeker

 

A few things come to mind. Just to begin, taxonomically, humans are hominids. So the question comes off as "fossils and footprints that links hominids to hominids."

Because there are a large number of fossils of living beings that shared traits of modern people, and traits of prehistoric hominids, I would disagree with your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem in phylogenesis l think is the absence of tissue samples.

Think of the problem this way: when there is a fossilized thylacine and a canine, how do we calculate that one is the infraclass Marsupiallia and the other is Mammalian ? Both have the same Kingdom, Phylum and Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

One problem in phylogenesis l think is the absence of tissue samples.

Think of the problem this way: when there is a fossilized thylacine and a canine, how do we calculate that one is the infraclass Marsupiallia and the other is Mammalian ? Both have the same Kingdom, Phylum and Class.

I dont know much about canines and thylacines, but...

If I had to guess, i would imagine there are morphological differences, even if those differences are relatively small or difficult to identify.

Thylacine-dog_palate.jpg

Looks like there are differences in the palate between the thylacine and regular dogs. I certainly wouldnt know the difference between one or another, but for people who sit around all day looking at dog skulls and thylacines, i suspect they would be able to distinguish between marsupials and non marsupials, or dogs and non dogs.

 

Not sure if that's what you were pondering or not.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice though if more soft tissues were fossilized.  Things like laagerstatten (probably misspelled) are pretty cool. Depending on the specimen, you might get features that depict the internal organs of an animal.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2011 at 10:28 AM, iSilurian said:

Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.

Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.

What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.

So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.

The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).

If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8

Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.

Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

060406.tiktaalik-1.jpg

Ok, moving on.

So now we have these land critters who like the water.

Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?

These guys arent too much different, morphologically.

The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.

so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

 

So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.

http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid

And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.

And we start finding fossils like these.lithographica_1044_990x742.jpg

Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.

http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

And, we go on and on.

In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).

And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...

It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.

http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040

And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.

Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

398-004-411B88E5.gif

I love looking back on some of these old posts. So a good number of resources here. Things ive even forgotten about over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to make a post here. This is somewhat uncharted waters for me (im more familiar with ancient fossils, I like cambrian and devonian stuff), so as a test run ill post about it to see if it floats.

Ill present a case for sahelanthropus tchadensis.  dated at 7 million years old.  It has a small brain capacity (maybe 1/4 the size of a human brain capacity). So its not human.  However, it has a flat face, small canines and a shortened palate, not elongate like modern day apes. Apes snouts can stick out, they have larger canines than we do and their palates are more elongate. So in that regard its more human like.  Though it also has this large brow, more ape like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

I could name a handful, but this seems like a good starting point.

 

Oh ah, one other thing, the foramen magnum. Kind of a focal point for anthropologists.  Its position in the skull indicates that the spinal column was in a more vertical direction, which is more human like than say, a chimpanzee, indicating that it stood upright.

So it has features that definitely make it different than modern day apes, but it certainly isnt fully human either. Just kind of a mix.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 

Ill present a case for sahelanthropus tchadensis.  dated at 7 million years old.  It has a small brain capacity (maybe 1/4 the size of a human brain capacity). So

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

 

Brain size and intellectual capacity is a defunct proposition now. Even among humans.

So of the most talented people -according to the paper l read- had diminished brain size.

Even crows can make and use very simple tools.

Comment: to me, the Daynes sculptural "impression" does not match the bones. The prejudicial pre-conception that hominids must look ape like.

Edited by hasanhh
Comment on Daynes Scupture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Brain size and intellectual capacity is a defunct proposition now. Even among humans.

So of the most talented people -according to the paper l read- had diminished brain size.

Even crows can make and use very simple tools.

Comment: to me, the Daynes sculptural "impression" does not match the bones. The prejudicial pre-conception that hominids must look ape like.

Nice to know and thanks for sharing. Having a skull capacity a quarter size of modern man I think demonstrates that what we are looking at, likely wasn't human. At least when looked at in combination with it's other non human traits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Brain size and intellectual capacity is a defunct proposition now. Even among humans.

So of the most talented people -according to the paper l read- had diminished brain size.

Even crows can make and use very simple tools.

Comment: to me, the Daynes sculptural "impression" does not match the bones. The prejudicial pre-conception that hominids must look ape like.

So do you study anatomy? Or a sort of hobby or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, iCambrian said:

So do you study anatomy? Or a sort of hobby or?

Not since school l got that info a few years ago from a TV program and then used that as a lead to look this up on-line.

What do you think about my Daynes prejudiciality comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam, I like this site a lot but sometimes there are some words used that I don't understand. Can someone reply with a brief list of words like for example namaz,... that lot of asian people use regarding islamic stuff so I can learn and understand. Thanks in advance
    • You could have invested in crypto, wait several months/years and made a profit lol
    • I could have, but I didn't do haram.
    • A simple answer, no its not necessary. A muslim by definition is someone who believes in oneness of God and Muhammad S.A.W being last prophet.  There is no condition of love. But as in case of parents we love them for what they have done for us. So, if one believes that God is the one given him life and everything else he/she has, gratitude and love is only natural.
    • Have you not seen the Arabic text right above the translation?

      Secondly, What is wrong in the translation of that verse? There is nothing wrong in it. I don't care who Shakir is, until he is translating the Arabic text correctly.    
×