What bugs me about the theory of evolution

I accept the theory of evolution, and strongly advocate for it, but something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.

For example:



or



I've never seen a graphic depicting direct species to species evolution. Instead, we only have the "end points" of the branches. Am I missing something here? Have we ever discovered fossils of species that was the common ancestor of other known fossil species?

The "tree" has critters from critters extending all the way back to a picture of a trunk of a tree...

image search result

a reply to: wildespace

Well it is called a theory.
I'm sure we have some of it wrong and some of it right and maybe we will have the whole story someday. Still looking for those missing links.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: wildespace

Well it is called a theory.
I'm sure we have some of it wrong and some of it right and maybe we will have the whole story someday. Still looking for those missing links.

Pretty much how I think about it too. It's good foundation, but genetics is much more complex than we think and there are massive holes that need to be filled.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So nothing with apples, snakes and ribs?

a reply to: wildespace



From rat to dog to dolphins/whales. Seems pretty simple.

And we still have rats, dogs, dolphins and whales today.

I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.

a reply to: CharlesT


Agreed.
The more simple an organism, the faster it would show signs of evolution.

Found this via google, Im sure there are other images that could be helpful as well. Someone else can post the actual picture, i am on mobile and its not the best interface.

qph.ec.quoracdn.net...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So nothing with apples, snakes and ribs?

No, but I believe there is some design involved in the process.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CharlesT


Agreed.
The more simple an organism, the faster it would show signs of evolution.

Based on the current theory, yes. But the bacterial organisms we have been studying for the last 100+ years have not become entirely new organisms. They still maintain the same biochemical metabolism that allow identification and differentiation.

And I would like to point out that if we ever do observe such differentiation in a laboratory, it gives credence to Intelligent Design because an external guiding force was working on the organism.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So nothing with apples, snakes and ribs?

No, but I believe there is some design involved in the process.

That would be an appeal to ignorance, but thats none of my business.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So nothing with apples, snakes and ribs?

No, but I believe there is some design involved in the process.

That would be an appeal to ignorance, but thats none of my business.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing just now.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CharlesT


Agreed.
The more simple an organism, the faster it would show signs of evolution.

Based on the current theory, yes. But the bacterial organisms we have been studying for the last 100+ years have not become entirely new organisms. They still maintain the same biochemical metabolism that allow identification and differentiation.

And I would like to point out that if we ever do observe such differentiation in a laboratory, it gives credence to Intelligent Design because an external guiding force was working on the organism.

Given the millions of years needed for genetic mutations to occur, we're hardly likely to spot something happening inside 100 years, are we ?

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CharlesT


Agreed.
The more simple an organism, the faster it would show signs of evolution.

Based on the current theory, yes. But the bacterial organisms we have been studying for the last 100+ years have not become entirely new organisms. They still maintain the same biochemical metabolism that allow identification and differentiation.

And I would like to point out that if we ever do observe such differentiation in a laboratory, it gives credence to Intelligent Design because an external guiding force was working on the organism.

Given the millions of years needed for genetic mutations to occur, we're hardly likely to spot something happening inside 100 years, are we ?

I fully agree. I'm not the one saying we are witnessing evolution in bacteria and plants, etc.

originally posted by: CharlesT
I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.

A broader vocabulary would gravitate more to the word adaptation.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: wildespace

Well it is called a theory.
I'm sure we have some of it wrong and some of it right and maybe we will have the whole story someday. Still looking for those missing links.

Agreed, it is a theory, and you are more right to say missing links, because that's what they are, rather than, 'the missing link' that is so often used. This is likely more a debate within those who study evolution.
One example, the "Lucy" fossil skeleton it seems, lived at least part of her life in the trees. But she also walked on two legs, she was dated over 3 million years old, while our walking [ancestors] base camp is or was, at two million years old.
To some then, it's logical to say there is no missing link.
I could guess also that genetics will play a bigger part in the theory in the near future, maybe even now, that could alter the way evolution, and man's origin/s is looked at.

For the OP, the fossil record is relatively small, and fossilization itself doesn't happen all the time every day, nor are there many opportunities on a grand scale to be able to search, or dig for them, and I dare say that just looking for a place to dig, needs to have a particular strategy, to pursue their specific work.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: wildespace

Well it is called a theory.

To be fair though, there’s a pretty big difference between a Scientific Theory and fan theories about the true nature of the island in the TV series Lost for example. In a biology, evolution is a natural mechanism that acts on biological life in earth. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (the official title for evolutionary theory since the 1940’s when the double helix and DNA were discovered. Without being overly pedantic, the MES serves to explain the mechanisms behind the incremental change over time shown in geology and the fossil record along with all of the new data that we’ve derived from genetics the last couple of decades which is getting good enough that we now have 400,000 year old MtDNA from remains found at Sims de los Huesos. Leading up to your next quoted statement, the genetics told us a story we definitely did not expect based on the morphological characteristics of the remains found at the site.

I'm sure we have some of it wrong and some of it right and maybe we will have the whole story someday.

I definitely agree with this. There is still a lot to learn and no matter how much new information we obtain, it always seems to open up new questions. It’s a pretty exciting time for paleoanthropologists

Still looking for those missing links.

Missing links are a pretty anachronistic concept and typically only mentioned by proponents of YEC and a 6-10 thousand year old dating of the universe. With the number of new hominids in general and members of our genus in particular, very species is at any given temporal moment, the transitional form people always want to see. Because our reproductive cycles are so long... an average of 20 years between generations, we obviously aren’t going to see things in humans change on the scale of the Lenski E Coli experiment or the experiment in bacterial antibiotic resistance done at Harvard in 2016. But every generation is different than the one before it. These changes add up incrementally. We’ve only had light skin, hair and eye colors other than brown for about 6 Ka for example. But morphologically, there are fairly large changes and we don’t look exactly like some of the first HSS who made their way into Europe and its even more pronounced difference when comparing humans if today with the Omo remains from 190+ Ka and there is no argument whatsoever that Homo Naledi is a completely separate species that evolved in South Africa. I could go on and on but it would be overly pedantic.

a reply to: peter vlar

Among the best of all members posting here.
Patiently detailed everytime.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Found this via google, Im sure there are other images that could be helpful as well. Someone else can post the actual picture, i am on mobile and its not the best interface.

qph.ec.quoracdn.net...

It's still only showing the animals at the tips of the branches. That's my hole point in this thread. What were the animals that were the bigger branch that the smaller branches had split off of?

Remember the widely-known depiction of human evolution (from ape to Homo Sapiens) in the direct line? Funny thing is, that picture is deemed inaccurate, or over-simplified. But there must've been such direct evolution among prehistoric animals, so that the species X evolves into species Y, which then evolves into species Z (producing some other species along the way, too).

That's the problem I'm pointing to here: we seem to know the end results of the branching out, but not the bough from which those branches sprang up.