Great question!
An example of the kind of evidence I'd consider as "wow that's strong evidence" would be, for example, two things: if we found almost nearly complete skeletons all the way connecting the the man to the ring-tailed lemur and the Charlie Darwin with a skeleton at least every 10 generations -- or with no gap more different then is common in 10 successive generations.
Secondly, we would have to not find a random cloud of variations that encompassed the whole progression. (I'll explain this in a minute.)
Now I know that following this evolutionary path climbs up the tree, then sideways, then down the tree, but the point is, it would provide very strong evidence that the ring-tailed lemur was related by common great great great grandpa to man.
Here's why I specify that there not be found a cloud of random specimens enveloping the selected finds:
I know enough about statistics to know that if you have, for example, a tack-board covered with thousands of randomly placed tacks, somebody could remove just the tacks they didn't want left and end up leaving a trail of tacks winding from any one point to any other point on the board, making it look like somehow a random placement of tacks had created a line of tacks, when in reality the randomness evenly distributed the tacks, but our non-random selectivity of qualified evidence is what caused the appearance of a line of tacks. (The only thing I intend to illustrate with this analogy is that by selecting results we can influence the outcome to fit our goal.)
Likewise, we must consider all the data, not just what fits with a certain idea -- otherwise we'll end up distorting the evidence in favor of the idea we're testing it against.
And it seems like you understand that the 5000 years of recorded history is minuscule compared to the evolutionary timescale.
I agree 5,000 isn't very big compared to 3,870,000,000 if that's your question.
I think you've abandoned the idea (if you ever held it) that there was ever such a thing as a half-dog, half-fish.
I'm not sure what a half-dog or half-fish is. Help me out here -- what's a half-dog and a half-fish?
But the question as to whether I hold the idea or not is telling: I shouldn't need to hold an idea -- I ought to be able to know that it's true. Only when I am to believe something without evidence do I need to hold it.
What's not strong evidence for speciation macroevolution is showing a series of bones that jump unknown generations in some cases and show a bunch of similar bones that are no more varied then todays horse or dog.
You see, in my mind, there are two kinds of evolution -- that which I have seen and that which I have not seen. That which I have seen I believe myself to know as fact. As I've mentioned, I grew up on a family farm -- we never had a kid, kittin, puppie, piglet or calf born or a chick hatch that was perfectly identical to either of its parents. Furthermore, common dog and horse breeding has brought about super tiny and super big dogs and horses. Long noses, short noses. Long ears, legs, bodies, and short thereof. I have no problem with any of this.
But what I don't see is anything drastic like would need to happen to for the ring tailed lemur to be related to Rev Charles Darwin.
And there is no reason for me to be certain that something I've seen proves something I haven't seen. You can throw a 10 pound rock 10 feet. You could probably throw a 1 pound rock about 20 feet. You can probably throw a 0.1 pound rock 50 feet. But I wouldn't bet on your being able to throw a 0.001 pound rock 500 feet.
It is perfectly appropriate for me to desire reasonably clear evidence before I take as fact the idea that Charlie and the RT Lemur descended from the same thing.
Does that answer your questions?
-Jesse
Well, I'd have to agree with you that that'd be mighty strong evidence indeed--that'd be about a million nearly complete skeletons. If that's the kind of evidence you're waiting for, I think you might as well resign yourself to never being convinced.
I'm not sure what a half-dog or half-fish is. Help me out here -- what's a half-dog and a half-fish?
I was referring to what you said back in #912: "But the sort of 'yet undiscovered intermediate fossils' which I was talking about are the sort that get from dog to horse, and from fish to dog." A half-fish, half-dog would be the hypthetical creature intermediate between fish and dog.
