Why would they have to exist all at the same time or in the same place? Dog breeders didn't do it just right and have one wolf that gave birth to a poodle, a great dane, a terrier, colie, bulldog, etc. Matter of fact, it took many many generations each with slight changes.
Maybe you don't mean that literally, but in case you do: nobody thinks dogs evolved into horses, and only in the broadest sense do they think fish evolved into dogs.
Thanks for the info. I'm clearly not well familiar with the evolutionary tree's exact order. Is there any chance you might be so kind as to provide me a link to a good one -- one that I can print out 17x32 or whatever and learn lots from? Thanks!
You've got to go all the way back to the development of jaws..
And eyes, and teeth, and, and... :-) I still like the idea of this ferocious little creature who's pretty much a primitive slime blob with these big complicated eyes, powefull jaws, and these fangs. :-)
There are transitional specimens along each branch, but nothing that shows something intermediate between branches--one wouldn't expect there to be.
I'm not saying that there should be intermediates between branches (except in the case of a severe ring species) but that the lines flowing along the branches ought to have very finely spaced fossils of development. But if I can find a really good chart then I'll be able to know more what I'm trying to talk about.
Thanks very much,
-Jesse
You said the horse skeletons appeared to you to be variations within a species or genus--or whatever you meant by "kind"--and compared the variation to different kinds of dogs. My question, which I guess I didn't express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record? If they're just variations like dogs, how come there aren't any fox-sized horses running around now? Why do we appear to have one variety, then the next variety, and so on?
I'm clearly not well familiar with the evolutionary tree's exact order. Is there any chance you might be so kind as to provide me a link to a good one -- one that I can print out 17x32 or whatever and learn lots from?
This is my favorite, because it's pretty extensive and has nice pictures. You'll find fish showing up about halfway down the orange-red group at the top left, near the label "450 m yrs." Mammal-y things show up a few branchings above that, in the same group.
[[I’m not saying that there should be intermediates between branches (except in the case of a severe ring species) but that the lines flowing along the branches ought to have very finely spaced fossils of development.]]
Instead, what we got are rat sized species (fully formed and fully functional and completed I mgiht add) set before a hippo sized creature (I beleive they were the cynodonts and therapsids) and we’re told “The evolution from sea to land, and hte evolution of hte ear is so complete that it is beyond question”? I find it funny how ID is called a religion, yet the faith needed ot beleive in such Macroevolution graphs is tremendous- the graphs don’t include clear lines, not even close- The world should be innundated with grossly mishappened forms showing a much closer transition than we find, because of trial and error which should have grossly outnumbered the ‘succesful adaptations’, and we shoudl be finding far more of htese grossly mishappened forms, yet nope- all we’re finding are completed fully functioning species examples with huge gaps between the supposedly related species- Even the suppsoed ‘branch off’ species lines are fiuleld with gaps, but we’re told “it’s not a problem as there are ‘things we don’t understand ‘just yet” “But” “We’re close”- they aren’t any closer today than they were 150 years ago- they just have fancier imaginations than htey did in the anciuent times. Rat to hippo- related- don’t ask quesitons cuz Macroeovlution is close to explaining origins and common descent.
