Museum IDs Transitional Species

well, another one

link goes to article

The dinosaur's horns, thick as a human arm, are like those of triceratops _ which came 10 million years later. However, this animal belonged to a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes.

...

That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.

"Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.

well, just add this to the already massive mountain of evidence that supports evolutionary theory

Cheers Madness. Nice to see more predictions paying off.

The perfect quote:

""Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said."


Ya link's not working though...

[edit on 4-3-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

"Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.

well, just add this to the already massive mountain of evidence that supports evolutionary theory

Ok, I will bite.
Three simple questions for you.

First- How many transitional species does it take to go from lizards to birds?
Second- How many transitional species are in your 'massive mountain' of evidence?
Third- Can you prove if any of these 'transitional species' had any offspring?

i'm just going to try to fix think link for now, i might get to bravo's question later.

does this work?

Hope you don't mind if I attempt to answer

Originally posted by 11Bravo
First- How many transitional species does it take to go from lizards to birds?

Each transitional is a snap-shot in time of the evolution of a population.

In Dawkins' 'the ancestors tale' (well worth the read if you are really interested - one of his best books), he makes the interesting thought experiment of taking a sample of a population back through time.

So, we start out with a modern human. We go back 50,000 years and try to mate this human with its ancient ancestor, it works. We then take a representative of that population, go back another 50,000 years and attempt to breed with its ancestor, again it works, the original human may also breed as well. We then do the same again, for 50,000 year steps, at some point we will reach a situation where the original modern human won't breed, but the older homonid examples will. The further we go back, the more recent (to homo sapiens) won't breed, but the closest in geological time to the time we find ourselves will. We will reach a time when we are mating some species that are much more apelike than human-like.

A bit like a 'ring species' but over time rather than geography. We could make a link between all the snap-shot examples of homonids through the past.

So, the answer is, as many as it requires. We only see snap-shots of past evolution. I'm quite sure we would like fossils every 50,000 years for all phylogenies, but we don't. Fossils are pretty rare, requiring particular conditons to leave a snap-shot for us.

Second- How many transitional species are in your 'massive mountain' of evidence?

Here's some transitionals for just a few phylogenies.

So, quite a few. And we will continue to find them, especially when guided by evolutionary knowledge (e.g. Tiktaalik).

Third- Can you prove if any of these 'transitional species' had any offspring?

If the ancient species couldn't breed we wouldn't be here. Why would we expect them not to be able to reproduce? We have eggs and other indications they could, just like any species alive now.

ABE:

@Madness: No, can't get it to work. If it works for you, madness, it might just be me...

[edit on 4-3-2007 by melatonin]

where are all the IDists and creationists? we have a story and ample evidence for evolutionary theory and transitional species. now where are the IDists that say that if we can identify 1 transitional species they'll consider changing their minds?

YOu have not identified anything except a fossil that looks like it was related to some other fossil. A fossil does not equate to proof of anything other than something once lived and now it is dead.
You have no proof that this fossil wasnt its own unique species, although you like to claim it is a link in a series of 'evolutionary steps'.
You may be able to find similar fossils, but there is no evidence that these fossils are part of an evolutionary ladder.
You put the cart before the horse.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
where are all the IDists and creationists? we have a story and ample evidence for evolutionary theory and transitional species. now where are the IDists that say that if we can identify 1 transitional species they'll consider changing their minds?

(emphasis -Rren) :sigh: That's Biblical creationism not ID. How many more times? Seriously. What in the design inference can be used to argue against CA/transitional species? Please be specific.


wrt to this find what do you find most compelling? In other words, how is this further evidence, to add to the "mountain of evidence" of the common ancestry of two distinct species? In a manner that would conflict with a[ny] creationists' model. Please be specific.

I'm sure there's much more to it than I can read in a news report but that's all I've got to go on. What'd you use?

Originally posted by 11Bravo
YOu have not identified anything except a fossil that looks like it was related to some other fossil. A fossil does not equate to proof of anything other than something once lived and now it is dead.
You have no proof that this fossil wasnt its own unique species, although you like to claim it is a link in a series of 'evolutionary steps'.
You may be able to find similar fossils, but there is no evidence that these fossils are part of an evolutionary ladder.
You put the cart before the horse.

No, we do have that evidence. We have evidence of a progression over time of evolution. The species show relationships via homology. We can also use biogeography as good evidence. The phylogeny and stratiography also show close correlation.

What you are trying to say is that people/species can just pop out of nowhere. You actually want to suggest continuous spontaneous creation of species that just looks amazingly like evolution by common descent. You want to suggest that apes just spontaneously appeared and all the homology and molecular evidence of descent is just pure coincidence, or even 'common design'.

All we need is a rabbit in precambrian to cause issues for ToE. But we don't find it. We find species gradually appearing over time who show relationships to species that preceeded them. Simple species to more complex species, a progression over time - evolution.

When we see species just 'poofing' into existence, then we should focus on that idea.