@ thehomer -

Please note that I made slight addittions to my last revert to you.

Further, here is the link I earlier quoted, since you ask about transitional and intermediate fossils.

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

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

Now where are the intermediate fossils I asked about in my OP please?

Deep Sight:

I did not ask for the contrast: I merely stated that I do not see the notions in either to be mutually exclusive. You are surely aware that even Darwin did see any such mutual exclusivity when he propounded the theory?

Stating that they're not mutually exclusive is a trivial conclusion.

Deep Sight:
Because with regard to the first claim there is abundant evidence of features that cannot be explained by the mechanics of the theory of evolution by themselves alone, and with regard to the 2nd claim, the age of the earth simply does not support the amount of mutations and the time therein required to arrive at what we have today.

Features like what?

How long do you think it should have taken?

Deep Sight:
Yes, that too, sir.

That would be a fallacious argument. The fact that you cannot conceive of it doesn't make it false.

Deep Sight:
None of this addresses the absence of useful intermediate fossils.

Well I think it does. If fossilization is difficult, or virtually absent in the case of unicellular organisms, why then would you think that these fossils will be found?
I also said there were lots of transitional/intermediate fossils available.
You were wondering something about mutations and whatnot. The thing is that these mutations are often easily discovered in the genes.

e.g one won't know about the mutations causing SS from bones alone, but from genetic material.

Deep Sight:
I quoted the separate definitions from one of the links above.

What link? Could you please post the quote again here for clarity?

Deep Sight:
As to your second question, no: life generally is, not man alone.

Good.

Deep Sight: @ thehomer -

Please note that I made slight addittions to my last revert to you.

Further, here is the link I earlier quoted, since you ask about transitional and intermediate fossils.

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

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

Now where are the intermediate fossils I asked about in my OP please?

As far as I know, the term "transitional fossil" is synonymous with "intermediate fossil" so what you have in bold there doesn't really look right to me. So you can go through the information on that page. It shows you different transitional fossils.

@ Ooman.

Thank you for your attempt (it is to be noted in your favour as against those who neither can nor will address anything substantive). Regrettably, nothing you have written addresses the very simple question I have asked in the OP - namely - about Intermediate Fossils. What you have done is simply to rehash basic evolutionary principles for us, which we do not need.

ooman: The superficial theme in nature is that nature, with all its "designs" must be controlled by some sort of intelligence. Indeed, some scientist held this view, until more light was shed about the structure of DNA.

And DNA itself evinces no special design?

This is all too funny. Your analogy is comparable to saying that defects in already highly developed systems, and the changes that such defects bring, therefore show that the highly developed system in the first place required no design.

The DNA revealed that life forms can transit and YES do transit from one form to another without the "compulsory" need of control.

Your understanding of DNA sir, is suspect. What is DNA, is not control itself already?

This change is termed mutation - It is inherent in the nature of DNA to make mistakes. Most of this mistakes are harmful, however, some are beneficial, leading to a new protein function. More of this change accumulate leading to new species - This process is termed Micro evolution.

Study also revealed that mistakes such as non disjunction of chromosomes can also lead to a "quick" evolution of new species from an ancestral one. RECENT Example include xenopus leavis, tympanoctomys etc - This type of evolution is called Macro Evolution, meaning large change at once in contrast to Micro evolution that needs time.

Also there are divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. Indeed, evolution is so broad to be an abstract.

None of this addresses anything. In fact, from your surmise, you should be able to show us millions and even billions of examples of intermediate fossils, arising from macro evolution, no?

Now let me address your "Premises". Many thanks for them.

first premise against intelligence influence - Mistakes are inherent nature of DNA - An omnipotent intelligence cannot /is too perfect to make mistakes. Contention against it is that we have been able to make INFALLIBLE DNA.

Watch your step son. Who has said anything here about perfection or omnipotence? Please dont wax religious on me. As such, this excuse fails. I do not advance any such thing to you as perfection or omnipotence in this matter. In fact, if you were keen, careful and thorough enough, you would realize that I do not even advance God to you in this equation. God, in my view, stands far too transcendent even for the matter of physical evolution to concern God. Please do not assume that every reference to intelligent input is a reference to God. Thank you.

Second premise - Morphologically, there is superficially, not to talk of thorough scrutiny, NO sign of intelligence in control of nature. Everyone will agree that IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST IS THE RULE OF THE GAME.

Survival of the fittest is no doubt true, but to say that there is no sign of intelligence in nature is more than stretching things. In fact, it might suggest that there is no intelligence in everything we are thinking and writing right now, no? For we are within nature, no? Careful buddy.

I will stop here for now, make sure you understand and take your questions

I hope I have understood you kind sir, and many thanks for your time and responses.

I am, however, constrained to repeat the question in my OP. For this primary school class sir, you are yet to show me a single intemrediate fossil between the major branches of creatures - given that in theory, they evolved one from another, with millions going extinct along the way. Where are they, kind sir?

thehomer:

As far as I know, the term "transitional fossil" is synonymous with "intermediate fossil" so what you have in bold there doesn't really look right to me. So you can go through the information on that page. It shows you different transitional fossils.

No sir, the distinction is quite finely made in that link already. And that distinction goes to the pith of the gaps that I placed in my OP for which I asked for intermediate fossils.

Can you point me to any?

Deep Sight:

O please do be careful to read that which I wrote and not that which you imagine me to have written. I do believe in evolution, but as stated above, I believe in directed evolution. In other words, that the process in its entirety could not have occurred without external intelligent imperative/ impetus.

My view is that the lifespan of the earth so far can hardly accommodate the amount of time required for random mutations and chance developments even and including natural selection, to have developed the full range of flora and fauna that have been, and still are, on Earth.

On what scientific grounds are you standing to make the bolded statement? Is this your own uninformed opinion, or one backed with scientific facts?

plaetton: [/b]

On what scientific grounds are you standing to make the bolded statement? Is this your own uninformed opinion, or one backed with scientific facts?

Have you attended to the math of the matter? Please have a look first at that.

Can you do that and then revert to me?

Plaetton:

Have a look at the timeline.

Date Event
2500 Ma Great Oxidation Event led by Cyanobacteria's oxygenic photosynthesis.[21] Commencement of plate tectonics with old marine crust dense enough to subduct.[11]
2000 Ma Diversification and expansion of acritarchs.[22]
By 1850 Ma Eukaryotic cells appear. Eukaryotes contain membrane-bound organelles with diverse functions, probably derived from prokaryotes engulfing each other via phagocytosis. (See Endosymbiosis). The appearance of red beds show that an oxidising atmosphere had been produced. Incentives now favoured the spread of eukaryotic life.[23][24][25]
1400 Ma Great increase in stromatolite diversity.
By 1200 Ma Sexual reproduction first appears, increasing the rate of evolution.[26]
1200 Ma Simple multicellular organisms evolve, mostly consisting of cell colonies of limited complexity. First multicellular red algae evolve
1100 Ma Earliest dinoflagellates
1000 Ma First vaucherian algae (ex: Palaeovaucheria)
750 Ma First protozoa (ex: Melanocyrillium)
850–630 Ma A global glaciation may have occurred.[27][28] Opinion is divided on whether it increased or decreased biodiversity or the rate of evolution.[29][30][31]
580–542 Ma The Ediacaran biota represent the first large, complex multicellular organisms - although their affinities remain a subject of debate.[32]
580–500 Ma Most modern phyla of animals begin to appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion.[33][34]
580–540 Ma The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer.[35] This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of the land.[35]
560 Ma Earliest fungi
550 Ma First fossil evidence for ctenophora (comb-jellies), porifera (sponges), and anthozoa (corals & anemones)

More details here -

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

Can you have a look at this and tell me if it makes any sense to you in terms of that which is required in terms of time, for these events to have occurred ALL within the time frame referred to?

Can you, in your analysis of same, please refer to the mathematical probabilities of the evolution of such life, and then compare same to the age of the earth?

Deep Sight:

Have you attended to the math of the matter? Please have a look first at that.

Can you do that and then revert to me?

Answer the damn question. Stop Anonynizing!

Logicboy03:


Answer the damn question. Stop Anonynizing!

Debunked. This is a foolish waste of time.

Deep Sight:

Have you attended to the math of the matter? Please have a look first at that.

Can you do that and then revert to me?

I dont know what you mean by the above.
But you did not answer my questions. If you come out to make bold statements on a scientific matter, you have to show the math first before you make known your conclusions. In this case, you are merely voicing your emotional opposition to accepted scientific notions.

4.7 billions years is enough time for the earth to have sufficiently cooled to support what we know as life. 4.7 billion years of cosmic radiations, solar storms, terrestial storms, earthquakes, continental drifts, etc is time enough to cause mutations and and infinite genetic variations of both plant and animal life.

Deep Sight:

Debunked. This is a foolish waste of time.

Deep Sight:

No sir, the distinction is quite finely made in that link already. And that distinction goes to the pith of the gaps that I placed in my OP for which I asked for intermediate fossils.

Can you point me to any?

That distinction makes no sense. Try looking up the term "intermediate fossils" somewhere else.

Talking about fossils with no traits connected to either their ancestors or descendants is like talking about a person who bears no traits connected to their biological parents or offspring.

It implies that the person magically sprung up with no connection and that is contrary to the theory of evolution.

thehomer:

That distinction makes no sense. Try looking up the term "intermediate fossils" somewhere else.

Talking about fossils with no traits connected to either their ancestors or descendants is like talking about a person who bears no traits connected to their biological parents or offspring.

It implies that the person magically sprung up with no connection and that is contrary to the theory of evolution.

GBAM

plaetton:

I dont know what you mean by the above.
But you did not answer my questions. If you come out to make bold statements on a scientific matter, you have to show the math first before you make known your conclusions. In this case, you are merely voicing your emotional opposition to accepted scientific notions.

4.7 billions years is enough time for the earth to have sufficiently cooled to support what we know as life. 4.7 years of cosmic radiations, solar storms, terrestial storms, earthquakes, continental drifts, etc to cause mutations and and infinite genetic variations of both plant and animal life.

Infinite, you say? How presumptuous! Anyway, I posted the timeline of evolution for the earth up there for you right after my post, maybe you should scrutinize it.

But before you do so, please let us agree on a simple principle.

Note carefully the following:

If we were to agree that the probability of a given sequence of events, is 1 in say, 1 billion days.

And that sequence of events requires 1 billion precise mutations and incidents of chance to occur as a full sequence once in 1 billion days.

Now let us say that we are given a timeframe for a venue for such an event to occur.

Let us say that that venue exists for only 1 day so far.

Would you agree, given the foregoing analogy, that it would be statistically improbable to say that the 1 day could support the occurrence of the full sequence of events?

I ask this question (and I hope you appreciate it) in order to see if you understand the fundamental reasoning behind my assertion that the age of the earth does not support the full spectrum of evolution. If you understand the analogy, you should see the point already - that is, once you take on board the period required for each instance of relevant macro evolution.

Finally, please note that although this problem became apparent to me without reference, I find that it is a huge issue which has been debated by even evolutionary scientists. Some have come to their own conclusions. What do you say?

thehomer:

That distinction makes no sense. Try looking up the term "intermediate fossils" somewhere else.

Talking about fossils with no traits connected to either their ancestors or descendants is like talking about a person who bears no traits connected to their biological parents or offspring.

It implies that the person magically sprung up with no connection and that is contrary to the theory of evolution.

WRONG SIR: Apparently, you are not reading. Surprising for you, but normal for your "gbammist" above.

It does not say "no traits". That would be impossible. It speaks of where the new traits are not observed to come from the ancestral group!

The exact words again - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

So its simple: it does not say, no traits. It refers to species with traits that are not observed in the supposed ancestral groups at all. New traits.

So answer, sir? ? ? ?

thehomer:

Well I think it does. If fossilization is difficult, or virtually absent in the case of unicellular organisms, why then would you think that these fossils will be found?

there is evidence in shale that fossilized unicellular organisms do exist.

thehomer:
You were wondering something about mutations and whatnot. The thing is that these mutations are often easily discovered in the genes.

e.g one won't know about the mutations causing SS from bones alone, but from genetic material.

I struggle with this... because quite clearly, evolution required genetic mutations to be expressed as distinct phenotypes. How is it possible then to argue that the lack of intermediate species is down to mutations that could only be seen in the genes?

davidylan:

I struggle with this... because quite clearly, evolution required genetic mutations to be expressed as distinct phenotypes. How is it possible then to argue that the lack of intermediate species is down to mutations that could only be seen in the genes?

I asked him this question in different words and he has not addressed it. Quite a dumb-founding excuse, if you ask me!

I said -

You surely cannot rely on recovery of genes alone as your mere excuse? Not even with the rarity of fossilization can you proffer these VERY weak excuses. In the case of the latter, the the share quantum of creatures over millenia puts your excuse to the lie. In the case of the former, since when has visual evidence of fossil shapes become useless to you and the theory? Was the entire theory not built and sustained on such visuals' re - fossils?

@Plaetton -

Let's use the summary of the basic evolutionary timeline for discussion -

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,

25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.

13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

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

Observe any oddities, or grossly unlikely timeframes?

Deep Sight:

WRONG SIR: Apparently, you are not reading. Surprising for you, but normal for your "gbammist" above.

It does not say "no traits". That would be impossible. It speaks of where the new traits are not observed to come from the ancestral group!

The exact words again - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

So its simple: it does not say, no traits. It refers to species with traits that are not observed in the supposed ancestral groups at all. New traits.

So answer, sir? ? ? ?

This is a trivial matter. Have you tried looking up the term "intermediate fossil" like I said? How can they find species with no traits observed in some ancestral group? Isn't it made of cells? Or do you think that you'll find a fossil that rather than having cells presumably based on carbon, they'll find one with cells made of silicon?

Like I said, that is probably just a confusion in the article. Again, look up the word "intermediate fossil" and show me where biologists describe the idea in that way.

thehomer:

This is a trivial matter. Have you tried looking up the term "intermediate fossil" like I said? How can they find species with no traits observed in some ancestral group?

This is unlike you. Confess, you are having something to drink, or you are at a party or something? ? ? ?

I repeat, and READ AGAIN: IT DOES NOT SAY "NO TRAITS! ! !"

It says "species with a host of traits not observed in the ancestral or derivative groups" That simply means species with some new traits that were not previously seen in ancestral or derivative groups ! ! !

Haba now?

davidylan:

there is evidence in shale that fossilized unicellular organisms do exist.

Sure and I said it was virtually absent. You do realize that the number of fossils of multicellular organisms far outweighs that of unicellular organisms despite the fact that unicellular organisms are far more numerous. So what I'm basically saying is that fossilization is a rare process.

davidylan:
I struggle with this... because quite clearly, evolution required genetic mutations to be expressed as distinct phenotypes. How is it possible then to argue that the lack of intermediate species is down to mutations that could only be seen in the genes?

Actually, evolution doesn't require that all genetic mutations be expressed as distinct phenotypes like I said, most mutations are "silent". e.g a man is genetically distinct from his father yet their bones will generally look alike despite their genetic differences.

davidylan:

there is evidence in shale that fossilized unicellular organisms do exist.

Sure and I said it was virtually absent. You do realize that the number of fossils of multicellular organisms far outweighs that of unicellular organisms despite the fact that unicellular organisms are far more numerous. So what I'm basically saying is that fossilization is a rare process.

davidylan:
I struggle with this... because quite clearly, evolution required genetic mutations to be expressed as distinct phenotypes. How is it possible then to argue that the lack of intermediate species is down to mutations that could only be seen in the genes?

Actually, evolution doesn't require that all genetic mutations be expressed as distinct phenotypes like I said, most mutations are "silent". e.g a man is genetically distinct from his father yet their bones will generally look alike despite their genetic differences. How much more when it comes to fossils millions of years old?

thehomer:

Actually, evolution doesn't require that all genetic mutations be expressed as distinct phenotypes like I said, most mutations are "silent". e.g a man is genetically distinct from his father yet their bones will generally look alike despite their genetic differences. How much more when it comes to fossils millions of years old?

And do you assert this to be an instance of mutation in the evolutionary context?

Deep Sight:

This is unlike you. Confess, you are having something to drink, or you are at a party or something? ? ? ?

I repeat, and READ AGAIN: IT DOES NOT SAY "NO TRAITS! ! !"

It says "species with a host of traits not observed in the ancestral or derivative groups" That simply means species with some new traits that were not previously seen in ancestral or derivative groups ! ! !

Haba now?

That is why wikipedia is not always accurate.

You are not widely read on evolution and you couldnt see the mistake.

Keep showing your idiocy as you mentioned in the op

Deep Sight:

This is unlike you. Confess, you are having something to drink, or you are at a party or something? ? ? ?

I repeat, and READ AGAIN: IT DOES NOT SAY "NO TRAITS! ! !"

It says "species with a host of traits not observed in the ancestral or derivative groups" That simply means species with some new traits that were not previously seen in ancestral or derivative groups ! ! !

Haba now?

And this is very much like you. I hope the brunch you had wasn't so heavy that it is still diverting blood to your GIT.
If the traits aren't observed in the ancestral or derivative groups, how does anyone know they're related? Go ahead and explain it.

You came accepting that you had little knowledge. I've told you that the two terms are similar, you disagree and show me a single line on Wikipedia that you'll notice has no citation. I also inform you that the way it is generally used by the experts is how I'm using it and that google will clearly demonstrate this but you refuse to budge from the uncited line that I've shown you in various ways to make no sense.

Deep Sight:

And do you assert this to be an instance of mutation in the evolutionary context?

It isn't an assertion, it is a fact of biological organisms and their fossilized remains. Surely you can understand the inference being made. If genetic mutations within people living within a 100 years of each isn't seen in their bones, how much more will that of organisms whose remains are millions of years old?

It is also a fact that not all mutations are expressed in such a way that they'll be significantly different from their parents.

thehomer:

And this is very much like you. I hope the brunch you had wasn't so heavy that it is still diverting blood to your GIT.
If the traits aren't observed in the ancestral or derivative groups, how does anyone know they're related? Go ahead and explain it.

You came accepting that you had little knowledge. I've told you that the two terms are similar, you disagree and show me a single line on Wikipedia that you'll notice has no citation. I also inform you that the way it is generally used by the experts is how I'm using it and that google will clearly demonstrate this but you refuse to budge from the uncited line that I've shown you in various ways to make no sense.

My friend, I don't know why you are getting excited. Its simple really. Of course the terms are generally similar. But there remains a fine distinction - and that remains the question in the OP. If you noticed, I already crafted the OP in such a way as to convey what I was looking for. Namely fossils that show features that make it evident that indeed fish did evolve to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, bird to mammal, and so on. This is a very simple question which no amount of attempts to render "intermediate" as transitional" will obviate - even if successful.

So the words regardless, the fossils being sought are obvious. Please call them what you please. Heck, even call them middle, or evolving or worever. The fact is that I am looking for fossils between the major groups of creatures. Crying about the similarity between the words 'intermediate' and transitional' will only show that you have no such fossils to show - even where I have shown you a difference.

Just fetch me the fossils I indicated gaps for in the OP, simple.

Other than that, all you have shown here is just rambling.

Logicboy03:


That is why wikipedia is not always accurate.

You are not widely read on evolution and you couldnt see the mistake.

Keep showing your idiocy as you mentioned in the op

Which mistake, that you have not even been able to point out or say a word on?

Please you are a foolish waste of time that has been debunked, Olodo, Next!

Epic failure.

Deep Sight:

Which mistake, that you have not even been able to point out or say a word on?

Please you are a foolish waste of time that has been debunked, Olodo, Next!

Epic failure.

Butthurt much?


How the hell can an intermediate species have no traits of both species it comes from?

Deep Sight:

My friend, I don't know why you are getting excited. Its simple really. Of course the terms are generally similar. But there remains a fine distinction - and that remains the question in the OP. If you noticed, I already crafted the OP in such a way as to convey what I was looking for. Namely fossils that show features that make it evident that indeed fish did evolve to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, bird to mammal, and so on. This is a very simple question which no amount of attempts to render "intermediate" as transitional" will obviate - even if successful.

It isn't just that the terms are similar, it is that the idea you tried to hang everything on made no sense.

Deep Sight:
So the words regardless, the fossils being sought are obvious. Please call them what you please. Heck, even call them middle, or evolving or worever. The fact is that I am looking for fossils between the major groups of creatures. Crying about the similarity between the words 'intermediate' and transitional' will only show that you have no such fossils to show - even where I have shown you a difference.

Just fetch me the fossils I indicated gaps for in the OP, simple.

Other than that, all you have shown here is just rambling.

Right on the page that you got the misleading information from, there's a list with pictures of the fossils. The link between fish and tetrapods is listed from here on that same page.

Now, what do you think a transitional fossil is? Since as I've shown you, the idea of intermediate fossil you were using was erroneous.

There wouldn't have been a better title.