• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolve

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
In a book at home I have a table listing over 200 transitional fossils, linking different forms. But it is hardly surprising there are gaps, when you consider how unusual it is for a dead creature to become fossilised, and then how rare it is for the rock containing it to be exposed at the surface, and then how lucky it is for someone to find it.
Actually I don't think pictures would be much help. A Video might be but probably not either. I think the best would be to have somebody physically show you them and explain the differences and how they're connected and what's missing to really get the best understanding. I think that would be awesome I'd like to do that but I doubt I probably ever could. All the science teachers should have replicas made so they can teach their students. I think that would be neat
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually I don't think pictures would be much help. A Video might be but probably not either. I think the best would be to have somebody physically show you them and explain the differences and how they're connected and what's missing to really get the best understanding. I think that would be awesome I'd like to do that but I doubt I probably ever could

Which is going to be very unlikely, unless you take an upper level university class or do your own research in the field. Most EXPERTS never get to see the original fossils for rare specimens.

I have been close enough to hold a couple of unique fossils: one of eoraptor (an early dinosaur) and another of a young tyranosaur (there is a debate whether it is actually the same species as the usual Tyranosaurus Rex or whether it is of a different species). In both cases it is because the person who discovered the fossil has connections to the university where I work.

I would be nice to have more high quality replicas available. They exist in some cases, but they also tend to be expensive. Furthermore, unless you have had (or are in) a course in comparative anatomy, there is not much past the 'wow' factor to be gained.

That said, in one of the anthropology classes here, students are required to identify the specific bone and species (of ape) *by touch* of a long bone. The bone is hidden from view and they get to touch about a third of it. This clearly takes training, but it is possible and expected for certain disciplines.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
How can one accept evolution when it's based on chance?
Since evolution is most certainly NOT "based on chance," you have already demonstrated that you know nothing about it at all, and that -- while you could have gone and done just a tiny amount of research about that comment, you did not -- you aren't going to want to learn anything about it in future either. Just another person lackling knowledge about something that you simply want to go away.

Therefore, no other answer than this will be forthcoming from me.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Which is going to be very unlikely, unless you take an upper level university class or do your own research in the field. Most EXPERTS never get to see the original fossils for rare specimens.

I have been close enough to hold a couple of unique fossils: one of eoraptor (an early dinosaur) and another of a young tyranosaur (there is a debate whether it is actually the same species as the usual Tyranosaurus Rex or whether it is of a different species). In both cases it is because the person who discovered the fossil has connections to the university where I work.

I would be nice to have more high quality replicas available. They exist in some cases, but they also tend to be expensive. Furthermore, unless you have had (or are in) a course in comparative anatomy, there is not much past the 'wow' factor to be gained.

That said, in one of the anthropology classes here, students are required to identify the specific bone and species (of ape) *by touch* of a long bone. The bone is hidden from view and they get to touch about a third of it. This clearly takes training, but it is possible and expected for certain disciplines.
Well hopefully someone here can give me a quick breakdown of the biggest missing parts as far as human evolution is concerned
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Since evolution is most certainly NOT "based on chance," you have already demonstrated that you know nothing about it at all, and that -- while you could have gone and done just a tiny amount of research about that comment, you did not -- you aren't going to want to learn anything about it in future either. Just another person lackling knowledge about something that you simply want to go away.

Therefore, no other answer than this will be forthcoming from me.
That's ok
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Surely most species are threatened by another so why didn't they evolve?

They do, and still are.


The thing to remember about biological evolution is that this process never stops. Fitness to a given environment is always changing because the environment is always changing. What was once good enough to survive in an environment might not be when conditions change. Organisms that fail to adapt their populations sufficiently over time to changes go extinct. It doesn't have to be perfect - in fact, it is never perfect. It just has to be good enough for an organism to reproduce and pass on its genes. Evolution is a process that happens in whole populations or organisms over time, not in individuals. Adaptations occur over generations.


Where is all the missing links if all we have is a catalog of different species that have lived?

Even if there were a lot of these "gaps" - which there aren't - evidence from both genetics and ecology would be sufficient to support biological evolution. Biodiversity doesn't make sense without evolution. Neither does genetics. That the fossil record doesn't make sense without it either is just another stack of evidence on the already very large pile (hence, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis - the evidence is overwhelming for it rather like there is overwhelming evidence for gravity).
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Well hopefully someone here can give me a quick breakdown of the biggest missing parts as far as human evolution is concerned
I think it’s important to remember two base “truths” of evolution.
1) It’s not actually a linear thing. Insofar as it’s not really a perfect straight timeline.
Instead Evolution has “branches.”
So one species will branch off into different sub species.
Basically then you’d get different sub species co existing throughout history.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (that’s us) likely lived alongside other subspecies of hominoid ancestors. Homo sapiens sapiens just happened to outlive them is all.
I don’t know the specifics of why that is, I’m not a scientist. But we were better suited to our environment than our cousins seems to be the likely option.
2) Fossils are actually rare and even rare to find. Because fossilisation requires a specific set of circumstances to occur. Most organisms that have lived throughout history simply rot away, leaving at best some trace evidence.
That we have so many is awesome. And why having “gaps” isn’t that big of a deal. Scientists are likely quite pleased to have the fossil record they have. I’m sure whenever another one is discovered, the boffins all rejoice. But it’s not like they’re going to push their luck. Deductive reasoning, DNA sequencing and other tools essentially help bridge any gaps we may find. And those gaps are getting more and more rare as evidence continues to be found. As is my understanding anyway.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
They do, and still are.

The thing to remember about biological evolution is that this process never stops. Fitness to a given environment is always changing because the environment is always changing. What was once good enough to survive in an environment might not be when conditions change. Organisms that fail to adapt their populations sufficiently over time to changes go extinct. It doesn't have to be perfect - in fact, it is never perfect. It just has to be good enough for an organism to reproduce and pass on its genes. Evolution is a process that happens in whole populations or organisms over time, not in individuals. Adaptations occur over generations.




Even if there were a lot of these "gaps" - which there aren't - evidence from both genetics and ecology would be sufficient to support biological evolution. Biodiversity doesn't make sense without evolution. Neither does genetics. That the fossil record doesn't make sense without it either is just another stack of evidence on the already very large pile (hence, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis - the evidence is overwhelming for it rather like there is overwhelming evidence for gravity).
They do, and still are.

The thing to remember about biological evolution is that this process never stops. Fitness to a given environment is always changing because the environment is always changing. What was once good enough to survive in an environment might not be when conditions change. Organisms that fail to adapt their populations sufficiently over time to changes go extinct. It doesn't have to be perfect - in fact, it is never perfect. It just has to be good enough for an organism to reproduce and pass on its genes. Evolution is a process that happens in whole populations or organisms over time, not in individuals. Adaptations occur over generations.




Even if there were a lot of these "gaps" - which there aren't - evidence from both genetics and ecology would be sufficient to support biological evolution. Biodiversity doesn't make sense without evolution. Neither does genetics. That the fossil record doesn't make sense without it either is just another stack of evidence on the already very large pile (hence, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis - the evidence is overwhelming for it rather like there is overwhelming evidence for gravity).
I hear you about genetics and ecology evidence being enough but I'm curious
do you know offhand how many gaps there are pertaining to human evolution?
No biggie if you don't
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
I think it’s important to remember two base “truths” of evolution.
1) It’s not actually a linear thing. Insofar as it’s not really a perfect straight timeline.
Instead Evolution has “branches.”
So one species will branch off into different sub species.
Basically then you’d get different sub species co existing throughout history.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (that’s us) likely lived alongside other subspecies of hominoid ancestors. Homo sapiens sapiens just happened to outlive them is all.
I don’t know the specifics of why that is, I’m not a scientist. But we were better suited to our environment than our cousins seems to be the likely option.
2) Fossils are actually rare and even rare to find. Because fossilisation requires a specific set of circumstances to occur. Most organisms that have lived throughout history simply rot away, leaving at best some trace evidence.
That we have so many is awesome. And why having “gaps” isn’t that big of a deal. Scientists are likely quite pleased to have the fossil record they have. I’m sure whenever another one is discovered, the boffins all rejoice. But it’s not like they’re going to push their luck. Deductive reasoning, DNA sequencing and other tools essentially help bridge any gaps we may find. And those gaps are getting more and more rare as evidence continues to be found. As is my understanding anyway.
I read about the branches and stuff. It's interesting. I understand having gaps isnt a big deal but I am curious to learn about it
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I read about the branches and stuff. It's interesting. I understand having gaps isnt a big deal but I am curious to learn about it
Fair enough.
I’m trying to think of RF posters who have that sort of academic background.
@exchemist? @Shadow Wolf?
@Quintessence?
You guys seem like science-y boffins.
Any good resources?
I’m pretty sure I got all my feeble knowledge from random YouTube educational videos.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I read about the branches and stuff. It's interesting. I understand having gaps isnt a big deal but I am curious to learn about it
Branches can easily be thought of as a tree, with the seed being origin of all life, and from all of us branching out from there. From there, it pretty much is like a tree, for example modern apes, though we all look very different we all share the same common ancestor, one shared even by all now extinct apes and early hominids. That common ape ancestor itself would share a common ancestor with monkeys. That common ancestor having a common ancestor with all mammals, having a common ancestor with all multi celled organisms, going back to the origins of life itself.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Branches can easily be thought of as a tree, with the seed being origin of all life, and from all of us branching out from there. From there, it pretty much is like a tree, for example modern apes, though we all look very different we all share the same common ancestor, one shared even by all now extinct apes and early hominids. That common ape ancestor itself would share a common ancestor with monkeys. That common ancestor having a common ancestor with all mammals, having a common ancestor with all multi celled organisms, going back to the origins of life itself.
Off topic but I always loved the ancient organisms from like the palaeozoic and Triassic periods. And even before that.
They look like evolution’s rough drafts lol
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I hear you about genetics and ecology evidence being enough but I'm curious
do you know offhand how many gaps there are pertaining to human evolution?
No biggie if you don't

It isn't very clear what you mean by a 'gap'? Do you mean things we don't understand? Gaps in the fossil record? Questions due to incomplete skeletons? Questions for which we may never have enough evidence to answer? or something else?

For example, there is a gap in the fossil record prior to Australopithecines and their split from the line that lead to chimps and bonobos. This gap can be reconstructed to some extent by using genetic techniques. On the other hand, Australopithecines are distinctly not modern humans and the transitions to modern humans from them to us is pretty well documented.

One 'gap' that we may never be able to answer is when complex language got started. There is some evidence that Homo erectus had some anatomical changes that may be due to such, but language doesn't fossilize, so we may never know. The development of religion is another question that may well be lost to the mists of time.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I hear you about genetics and ecology evidence being enough but I'm curious
do you know offhand how many gaps there are pertaining to human evolution?
No biggie if you don't

As @Polymath257 mentioned, it's a bit unclear what you mean by "gaps." In any case, scientists tend to be specialists and I'm no exception there - I don't study humans, nor is it something I look into in my free time. I find obsession with human evolution rather strange. Then again, I find anthropocentrism in general rather strange and off-putting, so there's that.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
It isn't very clear what you mean by a 'gap'? Do you mean things we don't understand? Gaps in the fossil record? Questions due to incomplete skeletons? Questions for which we may never have enough evidence to answer? or something else?

For example, there is a gap in the fossil record prior to Australopithecines and their split from the line that lead to chimps and bonobos. This gap can be reconstructed to some extent by using genetic techniques. On the other hand, Australopithecines are distinctly not modern humans and the transitions to modern humans from them to us is pretty well documented.

One 'gap' that we may never be able to answer is when complex language got started. There is some evidence that Homo erectus had some anatomical changes that may be due to such, but language doesn't fossilize, so we may never know. The development of religion is another question that may well be lost to the mists of time.
Fossil records pertaining to the groups that look most like humans today maybe seven or 10 I'm not really sure how many there are
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
As @Polymath257 mentioned, it's a bit unclear what you mean by "gaps." In any case, scientists tend to be specialists and I'm no exception there - I don't study humans, nor is it something I look into in my free time. I find obsession with human evolution rather strange. Then again, I find anthropocentrism in general rather strange and off-putting, so there's that.
Oh yeah I'm talking about the gaps in fossil records toward the latter part of human evolution
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
It isn't very clear what you mean by a 'gap'? Do you mean things we don't understand? Gaps in the fossil record? Questions due to incomplete skeletons? Questions for which we may never have enough evidence to answer? or something else?

For example, there is a gap in the fossil record prior to Australopithecines and their split from the line that lead to chimps and bonobos. This gap can be reconstructed to some extent by using genetic techniques. On the other hand, Australopithecines are distinctly not modern humans and the transitions to modern humans from them to us is pretty well documented.

One 'gap' that we may never be able to answer is when complex language got started. There is some evidence that Homo erectus had some anatomical changes that may be due to such, but language doesn't fossilize, so we may never know. The development of religion is another question that may well be lost to the mists of time.
I'm talking about the latter part of human evolution not so much before monkeys or during monkeys
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm talking about the latter part of human evolution not so much before monkeys or during monkeys

Be careful, apes and monkeys are not the same thing. They are both types of primates, but there are biological differences.

Chimps, Gorillas, and Bonobos are apes, but are not monkeys. The Australopithecines in our ancestry were also apes, not monkeys. WE are apes, but are not monkeys.

In particular, there is no time when we stopped being apes and started being human. We ARE apes still.

We have very good records for the last couple million years or so, which includes the transition between the Australopithecines to modern humans.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Be careful, apes and monkeys are not the same thing. They are both types of primates, but there are biological differences.

Chimps, Gorillas, and Bonobos are apes, but are not monkeys. The Australopithecines in our ancestry were also apes, not monkeys. WE are apes, but are not monkeys.

In particular, there is no time when we stopped being apes and started being human. We ARE apes still.

We have very good records for the last couple million years or so, which includes the transition between the Australopithecines to modern humans.
Interesting, are there any major gaps from australopithecines to modern humans?
 
Top